My OperaYou need to be logged in to post in the forums. If you do not have an account, please sign up first.
If it's evolution from apes... well, apes have almost as much of a skin color range as humans do, so it would depend entirely on the specific ape we evolved from, and their skin color is generally based on their habitat.
If "God" put us here... then it depends entirely on what religion you are, and whatever folklore associated with it about how humans came about, naturally the skin color generally reflects the skin color of the nation/area/people who devised the religion.
If aliens put us here... well, that's even less distinct than "God", and for all we know we could have been blue when we first started off.
Personally, I general hold the notion that black/dark-skinned people were the "first" since I lean towards "evolution", and that we likely would have started off, or at least grouped towards the sunnier/easier lifestyle type habitats, which would mean dark skin would be preferable for both the sunlight, as well as hiding in the brush/trees/shadows... and it wasn't till our technology (fire, clothing, etc) came about that we migrated to cooler places, less sunlight, and less of a need for our skin to be our camouflage.
However, it's also this same concept that tends to create the idea that "black people are lesser humans" because they still have the "old skin" or whatever... entirely off-topic remark... but, relevant none-the-less (not to say I agree with it).
But it's also possible that we were somewhat "spotty" (like most of the lighter skinned apes), and over the course of many years, we naturally grouped into "more spotty" and "less spotty" either because of some sort of feeling of belonging, or just some groups chose different habitats and the skin evolved accordingly for both (or more) areas.
I have no proof, because there isn't any proof, only theories that seem to fit... a few quick searches, and you can find all sorts of things on why peoples skin color is what it is, where the oldest remains have been found, etc... but really... we are all just making s**t up as we go along.
Originally posted by Billymish:
its all about proving a point.
I don't think you can really prove a point, though I would imagine that our lighter skin mostly developed in northern Africa and beyond. Further from the equator, less sunlight... roughly what Vectronic said.
I had a little investigation considering modern man's ancestors and their likely contemporary relations. Firstly, it is worth noting that there are many light skinned apes and many of those are not of a solid colour but often have random or area-specific patterns (e.g. bonobos are always lighter around the eyes and lips).
The Australopithecus is thought to have developed into the modern Homo genus. Remains of the species come out of Africa, so it came as a small surprise to me to find that artists representations of this creature have dark, but not black skin. When I think of native Africans, I'm inclined to picture black skin - it's certainly the dominant colour today.
The Smithsonian offers some artists representations of the known stages of ancestry of human predecessors, but their faces are not depicted as black until Australopithecus afarensis. Their depiction of early Homo erectus has skin that one might associate with modern Africa.
I think this lack of commitment to a skin colour is very possibly an indication that even the finest experts simply don't know what the true skin colour was. In fact I would be surprised if any one skin colour could be attributed to mankind in any era. Other mammals vary wildly in skin and hair colour and patterns within genus and species - no two tigers have the same stripes so why should we be any different? Do other mammals that live in extremely sunny conditions tend towards darker skin? None spring to mind for me, but maybe someone here knows better.
Personally, I have a strange incling that the modern black man may have developed later. This thought has only occured to me while writing this post so it isn't exactly well thought out but: If modern primates share a common ancestry, where did the afro come from? I've not read of any other primates with this type of hair. So is it not probable that it developed on a separate and later evolutionary line?
- Josie Long
Skin colour is an adaptation, and an easy adaptation at that. What this means is that skin colour indicates where your near ancestors lived, not what genetic branch you belong to. This means that if you pick at random some invididual with your skin colour, you will probably are not closely related.
The first humans of our species are believed to have originated in East Africa, a sunny climate. Thus the first ones would likely be fairly dark-skinned, or become dark-skinned very quickly. My money is thus on black. In a decade or two we could know the answer.
Originally posted by jax:
In a decade or two we could know the answer.
If we could dig out enough early human DNA that is. We have some samples of Neandertals, an extinct human species who primarily lived in Europe to our current knowledge. Preliminary results indicate that <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7062415.stm">red hair was common</a> among them, and long-standing speculation has it that they were pale-skinned, which can be seen as a case of convergent evolution just like dolphins look like fish because they live in the same environment. Deeper-standing differences are harder to change. Both dolphins and fish swim, but they don't swim in the same way. And then our more distant relatives orangoutang have red hair too, even if they have never lived in Europe.
A new study suggests that evolution is making women more beautiful, while men are still stuck in the Stone Age in terms of attractiveness. In a study released last week, Markus Jokela, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, demonstrated that beautiful women had more children than their plainer counterparts and a higher proportion of those children were female. Those children also tended to be attractive and to repeat the pattern of having more female children once they became adults, according to the study. The Times online reported that data was gathered in America, from 1,244 women and 997 men, who were followed over four decades. Their attractiveness was rated from photographs taken during the study. Researchers also looked at the number of children they had. The study found attractive women had 16 percent more children, and very attractive women had 6 percent more children than their less attractive counterparts. But the study found that the opposite is true for men, with handsome men being no more successful than others in terms of numbers of children. Scientists said this suggested there was little pressure for men’s appearance to evolve.
From the above evidence we can deduce that the origins of life started in Dunstable, Bedfordshire. Fact.
Originally posted by keloda:
The intelligentsians in this forum-that's if we have them-should not argue about this subject,atleast not as a debate.Anyone that've ever had a mere peep at a history board should not have any confusion about the cradle of human settlement/home.the least history-enlightened fela should voice africa as the cradle of creation(or darwinian evolution,huh).it is obvious,proven beyond doubt among series of erudites.But with retrospect to the nitty-gritty of this forum,i won't be least amazed,even amused,to see dudes sparring over the obvious.And as an extrovert,i wouldn't fail in my duty to provide additional enlightement for the hardened nitty-wittys! Though i know majority will crawl into next moment still dallying on the line of this argumental vanity. Am outa here
Your reluctance to debate astonishes me. The evidence that we have does indeed show the mighty Africa to be the home of human life, but that evidence is only of bones.
I dislike your implication that because Africa is where humans first appeared, that those people should be just like Africans of today. While it is true that the bones show certain features that are still found in modern Africa (sturdier brows, thicker bones, wider nasal cavities etc.) I think it's narrow-minded to suggest that Africans, whatever their skin colour, have changed little in the last few million years.
Having read a great deal on this subject today I was preparing to write quite an essay on this subject when I came across the following piece on Google Books whose opening chapter sums things up very nicely:
Black Skin: Structure and function
If you are at all interested in this debate then I commend Google's extracts of this book to you. Especially the parts on Gloger's rule (already touched upon in this debate regarding skin tone and proximity to the equator) and the Classifications of Mankind.
For those that can't be bothered to read it (though I wish you would) there are two quotes that will probably be of interest to the OP "Since there is no concrete knowledge of the skin color of prehistoric man, we can only speculate" page 16. para 2.
And another quote for specifically for Keloda, "Rook et al. (1986) believe that American Blacks have departed so far from their original stocks that they must now be considered racially distinct from the 'Negro of West Africa.'" page 16. para 2. Whether the author of this statement is correct or not, if a group of people can show some appreciable differences inside a few centuries, why do you think their skin must have been perfected millions of years ago?
Also, if anyone reads through that book and thinks I've been duped by a bunch of pseudo-science wielding charlatans, do say so.
- Josie Long
pseudo-science wielding charlatans
They are the cornerstone of these forums.
Originally posted by WastedCharlie:
And another quote for specifically for Keloda, "Rook et al. (1986) believe that American Blacks have departed so far from their original stocks that they must now be considered racially distinct from the 'Negro of West Africa.'" page 16. para 2. Whether the author of this statement is correct or not, if a group of people can show some appreciable differences inside a few centuries, why do you think their skin must have been perfected millions of years ago?
That's probably largely due to mixing with people from all over the world though and less from "internal" changes?
Originally posted by WastedCharlie:
You really gave me succour by this comment.I gonged my view of the cradle of human settlement,with a high degree of certitude,and still stand firmly on that.In the course of your criticism,you help me make a point look more clear:the bones are evidences of earliest settlement,but obviously,it doesn't mean the inhabitants look like africans of today(atleast no one is damned sure about that).
Your reluctance to debate astonishes me. The evidence that we have does indeed show the mighty Africa to be the home of human life, but that evidence is only of bones.
I dislike your implication that because Africa is where humans first appeared, that those people should be just like Africans of today.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Moaning a spilt milk?Or still crying over it.Africa is your ancestral home,your garden of Eden.If you feel you are a square peg in a round hole,then here is an astute advice:Go to the US,plead with NASA,board a space ship and go to the space and be re-conceived.By the time you return,the world will call you al-howie(ie alien-howie!)Oh Heavens don't make it Africa. There would be no hope for humanity judging by some the contributions suddenly flooding in from over there to the Forum. Discover electricity they play with switches no the net so I suppose we have to goran and bear it?!
Originally posted by Billymish:
I had debate with some guys which lead to race issue,whether white/black community are first to live/exist on Earth.
Kind of silly but since the oldest remains of anatomically modern humans were found in western africa it's fair to assume they had dark skin.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.1. May 2010, 01:08:35 (edited)
Originally posted by Wikipedia:
A 2007 study suggested some Neanderthals may have had red hair and pale skin color.
Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by rjhowie:
with retrospect to time,i'd better be the cradle of settlement than sprawling over some defenceless sect,after which i'll go behind the dark,being a shadow of my former powerful self.That is typical of britain:a defeated and exiled warlord,brutesOh the milk is well and truly spilt keloda. We have legions of aliens here already and on the way to being taken over. I reckon the originals were probably British as we took over a whole chunk of the world for a long time. So eat you heart out my boy.
Originally posted by Macallan:
Probably whitish
Because we are assuming that melamine that reacts to the amount of light will define the skin color.
But in fact, what we call being black or white or yellow, more than just the skin color it's related to morphological characteristics. And this doesn't seems to change with sun.
I don't agree with the African origin theories for Homo Sapiens, because what happens it that due to geological movements at Africa old remains are near to surface at Africa, mainly the Rift Valley, than at Europe or other places. Nothing more.
Probably mankind will had appeared at several different places around the same time. If we easily get those remains or not, it's not a valid base for origin theories.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.That is typical of britain:a defeated and exiled warlord,brutes
Yeah.But we're back by dope demand now, kickin it in the middle east. It won't be long before we build as Tescos superstore in Iran.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
What was the skin color of Neanderthals, that only existed at Europe, far behind those Homo Sapiens found at Africa
I have a little Basque blood also...(Neanderthals, I am told) and I am surprisingly good looking. I am total Red White and Blue
I have a little Basque blood also...(Neanderthals, I am told) and I am surprisingly good looking. I am total Red White and Blue
Are you a bloke or a bird?
Originally posted by TroyMclure:
Are you a bloke or a bird
I was standing on a street corner in DC once trying to thumb home and this ah, man informed me,of what he thought. My wife doesn't seem to care one way or the other. I have a rather goofy neighbor, single lady, who seems somewhat attracted. I guess you would probably say I am a bloke, although i don't know if that is a compliment. it is not a word I find used around here. Google again
edit: I see a fictional character in the Marvel Universe
Originally posted by Denny77:
I guess you would probably say I am a bloke, although i don't know if that is a compliment. it is not a word I find used around here.
And bird is? O-o
A bloke is a man.
We're still not sure about Lady Ga Ga.
Originally posted by TroyMclure:
A bird is a woman.
A bloke is a man.
We know. But bird would sound... old-fashioned in American English afaik.
Originally posted by Macallan:
Eastern Africa. Humans came to Western Africa probably after they came to Eurasia. Neandertals also seem to be of African origin, but they made Eurasia their own.Kind of silly but since the oldest remains of anatomically modern humans were found in western africa it's fair to assume they had dark skin.
Originally posted by Denny77:
I have a little Basque blood also...(Neanderthals, I am told) and I am surprisingly good looking.
That's quite a family tree you've got Denny. Neanderthals died out some 20,000 years ago and it is questionable whether they are truly related to modern man.
It's always difficult to say anyone is from any given region for a great amount of time. People love to get about: we cross countries and continents foraging for fertile lands, waging wars, and just putting our mark on the world. Spain has been colonised by Phoenicians and Greeks, it's been part of the Roman Empire, part of the Moorish Empire, a client state to the French Republic, and of course, head of the Spanish Empire. It's had wars with the Dutch, the English, the French, the Ottoman Turks and others I'm sure. More recently, men from across Europe went to fight against General Franco and his fascists, and of course since Spain remained neutral to both world wars it was a prime destination for those wishing to avoid the battle.
Be in no doubt that Spain has had a huge turnover of immigrants and emigrants. It's beyond unlikely that any family has hung around there for 20,000 years. It takes effort to move yourself these days, but not too long ago real estate was for the elite, and the rest of us could move around pretty easily, even emigrating wasn't that a great deal of hassle. And remember, it took 2 parents to make you, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents etc. - those numbers double up with each generation. What's the chances that a significant percentage remained in one geographic location for long?
- Josie Long
Originally posted by WastedCharlie:
And remember, it took 2 parents to make you, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents etc. - those numbers double up with each generation. What's the chances that a significant percentage remained in one geographic location for long?
Consanguinity. That's the answer. If it was not, we should have 100.000 more population at the beginning of times than we have today.
But consanguinity happens inside relative small places. No need to go over the the world for that.
And Basques are a good example. Neither biological neither even linguistic, they don't belong to anything else. They are an enigma.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by jax:
Originally posted by Macallan:
Eastern Africa.Kind of silly but since the oldest remains of anatomically modern humans were found in western africa it's fair to assume they had dark skin.
Oops
I blame lack of
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2010/pressRelease201003292/index.html
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
They are an enigma.
Well the old guy jumped ship and married a Mohawk.. explained that ....no longer a enigma I guess. That is family tradition, but who knows for sure.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
I could almost have guessed an American would be the frontline boaster........
I am almost afraid to ask what is a "frontline booster" i
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Billymish:
I had debate with some guys which lead to race issue,whether white/black community are first to live/exist on Earth.
They didn't leave any photos. But all of the artwork that I've seen shows Adam and Eve as white, so it must be that they were white.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Discover electricity they play with switches no the net so I suppose we have to goran and bear it?!
Can you do that again, but in English this time?
Trans Humanism, Singularity and stuff like that.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.10. May 2010, 22:50:58 (edited)
Originally posted by Jaybro:
They didn't leave any photos. But all of the artwork that I've seen shows Adam and Eve as white, so it must be that they were white.
It was all about belief that blacks had/have before the race thing,
~which led the topic to whites being blacks offspring look at black albinos vs white albinos charecteristics.
Of which thats where the real argument came about "albinos".
By theory(science) not religion:-monkeys are first generation then human then whats next?jugding the chemicals from the food we eat+similar genes people will have in future+medication that people take daily=
maybe the result will be more physically disadvantaged people.
Originally posted by Billymish:
By theory(science) not religion:-monkeys are first generation then human then whats next?
Monkeys are not the first generation, we don't descent from monkeys at all
To learn more about Human Evolution and Monkeys, please click here and here.
We are all decendants of Adam & Eve, but humanity was spread out so the different climates and inviroments made humanity develop diffrent skin tones....Who knows, was first, only God knows.
Originally posted by RekaG:
Skin color?....hmmm....We adapted, it really depends on where are ancestry is from.
We are all decendants of Adam & Eve, but humanity was spread out so the different climates and inviroments made humanity develop diffrent skin tones....Who knows, was first, only God knows.
We evolved?
Originally posted by OnetimePoster:
We didn't actually, if we did it wasn't from animals, if we truelly evolved or are evolving, wouldn't we have understood things by now. Like the planet and universe we live in.Originally posted by RekaG:
Skin color?....hmmm....We adapted, it really depends on where are ancestry is from.
We are all decendants of Adam & Eve, but humanity was spread out so the different climates and inviroments made humanity develop diffrent skin tones....Who knows, was first, only God knows.
We evolved?
Adaptation isn't evolution its a part of living on this planet.(I've learned this from expirience)
Originally posted by RekaG:
if we truelly evolved or are evolving, wouldn't we have understood things by now. Like the planet and universe we live in.
What on earth gave you that idea?
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Macallan:
I believe they are under the impression that we have reached perfection...What on earth gave you that idea?
Originally posted by Vectronic:
Actually no, nobody is perfect, humanity is far from perfection. They?.... I'm not part of a collective.(*LOL*, Star Trek:TNG reference)Originally posted by Macallan:
I believe they are under the impression that we have reached perfection...What on earth gave you that idea?
Originally posted by Macallan:
The impression I get from most of the people who believe in "Darwinism" is that humanity gets?...Something like that.........Originally posted by RekaG:
if we truelly evolved or are evolving, wouldn't we have understood things by now. Like the planet and universe we live in.
What on earth gave you that idea?
My understand is the theory of natural selection, survival of the fittest basically. Not the theory we evolve from animals or tiny organism.
But that's a different debate really, and is only in context if you want to take it to the "whole picture" rather than just "where did the picture start", sort of like the question being "<i>who painted the Mona Lisa</i>?", and then trailing off into "<i>is it a portrait of a male, or a female</i>?" or just the general aesthetics of the imagery... which is far more perceptual, or subjective... than answering the original question, which I guess in this case, is pretty much the same, since we are making it up either way.
/whoops... ramble...
Originally posted by RekaG:
So you only believe in partial evolution? a finite form...something that happens in the middle, and didn't start at the beginning, and won't continue till the end? Isn't that sort of like saying "<i>I only believe in my teenage years, I was never a child, nor an adult</i>".My understand is the theory of natural selection, survival of the fittest basically. Not the theory we evolve from animals or tiny organism.
Originally posted by RekaG:
Originally posted by Macallan:
The impression I get from most of the people who believe in "Darwinism" is that humanity gets?...Something like that.........Originally posted by RekaG:
if we truelly evolved or are evolving, wouldn't we have understood things by now. Like the planet and universe we live in.
What on earth gave you that idea?
Something like what?
Originally posted by RekaG:
My understand is the theory of natural selection, survival of the fittest basically. Not the theory we evolve from animals or tiny organism.
I have no idea what on earth you're talking about. And neither do you by the look of it.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
An example: if a race of man eating alians invaded earth, only the strongest and fastest would survive and than they would reproduce and everything that makes humanity slow and fat won't exist anymore over time.
Originally posted by RekaG:
An example: if a race of man eating alians invaded earth, only the strongest and fastest would survive and than they would reproduce and everything that makes humanity slow and fat won't exist anymore over time.
Now imagine that only those with the most fish-like hands and feet would survive (or at least just generally those capable of swimming well), or only those who are small (less food intake), etc. Just imagine similar small changes over and over again. Why would it reach some kind of barrier?
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Are minds and souls will be still the same and humanity will still be pondering over the mysteries over and over. It took humanity years to figure out that we are destroying earth, along with the earth destroying itself. If people have just read the bible, it would of been discovered, because it says it.Originally posted by RekaG:
An example: if a race of man eating alians invaded earth, only the strongest and fastest would survive and than they would reproduce and everything that makes humanity slow and fat won't exist anymore over time.
Now imagine that only those with the most fish-like hands and feet would survive (or at least just generally those capable of swimming well), or only those who are small (less food intake), etc. Just imagine similar small changes over and over again. Why would it reach some kind of barrier?
Sorry about the typo, I meant to say "getting smarter".
Originally posted by RekaG:
Are minds and souls will be still the same and humanity will still be pondering over the mysteries over and over. It took humanity years to figure out that we are destroying earth, along with the earth destroying itself. If people have just read the bible, it would of been discovered, because it says it.
Says what? "Thou shalt limit thy CO2 exhaust"? Come now, you can certainly learn things from the bible but science isn't one of them.
Originally posted by RekaG:
People did read the bible, millions do it every day, and have done so for... well, a hundred years or so... before that most were entirely reliant on their local preacher (a lot still are) and that doesn't seem to stop them. Besides, I am certain that 3,000 years ago, people were also complaining about people littering, or that the new aqueduct would destroy the %<i>insert random object or area</i>%, or that over-farming would result in a wasteland. The main difference is, there are more of us now, using better technology... but the ratio is probably the same. On top of that, what exaggerates this "global crisis" type stuff is that, even 100 years ago, it took a long time for information to travel, 98% of the world wouldn't have known, nor cared about some island that got hit by an earthquake, or some oil leak in the ocean. Now 70% of the world knows about it, within a day of it happening (if they so choose).If people have just read the bible, it would of been discovered, because it says it.
Originally posted by RekaG:
We are all decendants of Adam & Eve, but humanity was spread out so the different climates and inviroments made humanity develop diffrent skin tones....Who knows, was first, only God knows.
Welcome back to the dark ages.
Originally posted by RekaG:
@Vectronic, Its not, we actually were dirt and clay(oh...so thats where that theory came from), I know that we share DNA with apes and monkeys but we didn't actually evolve, we were created to be over the animals not to be them.
Do you really believe that???
I mean, both human and monkeys are evolutions from a distant common ancestor. We're mammals, that means we're also animals, but we evolved in our environment to be the dominant specie (at least in our point of view), we got to walk in our feet (witch made our hands free to manipulate objects better), our brain grew up a lot, we created complex language, etc, etc... and we're still evolving like every other species, it's a never ending story
But we are what we are, and we're not less or more because of that
12. May 2010, 17:49:29 (edited)
Originally posted by Zotlan:
Heres the thing, the bible most of it lines up with science and that science is closer and closer to the bible. The bible says we are the caretakers, no one really took that into consideration until people start to pollute the ocean and when a texas size collection of trash is in the middle of the sea.Originally posted by RekaG:
Are minds and souls will be still the same and humanity will still be pondering over the mysteries over and over. It took humanity years to figure out that we are destroying earth, along with the earth destroying itself. If people have just read the bible, it would of been discovered, because it says it.
Says what? "Thou shalt limit thy CO2 exhaust"? Come now, you can certainly learn things from the bible but science isn't one of them.
Originally posted by pedrojosecarreira:
Of coarse we are geneticly mammals but we are the only one that have to learn love and have the knowledge of good & evil. Animals don't know right or wrong, they only know instinct, the reason why animals have shorter lives its because the already know how to love.Originally posted by RekaG:
@Vectronic, Its not, we actually were dirt and clay(oh...so thats where that theory came from), I know that we share DNA with apes and monkeys but we didn't actually evolve, we were created to be over the animals not to be them.
Do you really believe that???
I mean, both human and monkeys are evolutions from a distant common ancestor. We're mammals, that means we're also animals, but we evolved in our environment to be the dominant specie (at least in our point of view), we got to walk in our feet (witch made our hands free to manipulate objects better), our brain grew up a lot, we created complex language, etc, etc... and we're still evolving like every other species, it's a never ending story
But we are what we are, and we're not less or more because of that
I would give you a bible passage but I can't remember where it says, that we are th caretakers of earth.
Originally posted by RekaG:
Originally posted by Zotlan:
Heres the thing, the bible most of it lines up with science and that science is closer and closer to the bible.Originally posted by RekaG:
Are minds and souls will be still the same and humanity will still be pondering over the mysteries over and over. It took humanity years to figure out that we are destroying earth, along with the earth destroying itself. If people have just read the bible, it would of been discovered, because it says it.
Says what? "Thou shalt limit thy CO2 exhaust"? Come now, you can certainly learn things from the bible but science isn't one of them.
Only if you ignore most of science and completely misunderstand the rest - which seems to be what you're doing.
Originally posted by RekaG:
The bible says we are the caretakers, no one really took that into consideration until people start to pollute the ocean and when a texas size collection of trash is in the middle of the sea.
It says no such thing.
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over every animal that moveth on the earth.
Subdue it, have dominion - caretakers my ass.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Macallan:
That actually says it, whats your translation?Originally posted by RekaG:
Originally posted by Zotlan:
Heres the thing, the bible most of it lines up with science and that science is closer and closer to the bible.Originally posted by RekaG:
Are minds and souls will be still the same and humanity will still be pondering over the mysteries over and over. It took humanity years to figure out that we are destroying earth, along with the earth destroying itself. If people have just read the bible, it would of been discovered, because it says it.
Says what? "Thou shalt limit thy CO2 exhaust"? Come now, you can certainly learn things from the bible but science isn't one of them.
Only if you ignore most of science and completely misunderstand the rest - which seems to be what you're doing.Originally posted by RekaG:
The bible says we are the caretakers, no one really took that into consideration until people start to pollute the ocean and when a texas size collection of trash is in the middle of the sea.
It says no such thing.
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over every animal that moveth on the earth.
Subdue it, have dominion - caretakers my ass.
Originally posted by Macallan:
It says no such thing.
It depends much on which translation you use.
Genesis 2:15-17 (King James Version)
15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Genesis 2:15 (New International Version)
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
Originally posted by RekaG:
the reason why animals have shorter lives its because the already know how to love.
Say what?!
There are reports of turtles living for hundreds of years. I have one that's been in our family for almost as long as rjhowie has been around.
Originally posted by Jaybro:
Originally posted by Macallan:
It says no such thing.
It depends much on which translation you use.
Well, you can make the bible say pretty much whatever you want - just grab some verse you like and ignore the rest as all the christians do.
Originally posted by Jaybro:
Genesis 2:15-17 (King James Version)
15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.Genesis 2:15 (New International Version)
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
Emphasis added - they supposedly got kicked out of there.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Jaybro:
I forgot that -_-'Originally posted by Macallan:
It says no such thing.
It depends much on which translation you use.Genesis 2:15-17 (King James Version)
15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.Genesis 2:15 (New International Version)
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.Originally posted by RekaG:
the reason why animals have shorter lives its because the already know how to love.
Say what?!
There are reports of turtles living for hundreds of years. I have one that's been in our family for almost as long as rjhowie has been around.
God made them live long because only a small amount of hatchlings make it to the ocean and they don't breed like mammals.
Originally posted by RekaG:
the reason why animals have shorter lives its because the already know how to love.
Finally learned how!
Lucky we lived for a hundred years!
Originally posted by RekaG:
Originally posted by pedrojosecarreira:
Do you really believe that???
I mean, both human and monkeys are evolutions from a distant common ancestor. We're mammals, that means we're also animals, but we evolved in our environment to be the dominant specie (at least in our point of view), we got to walk in our feet (witch made our hands free to manipulate objects better), our brain grew up a lot, we created complex language, etc, etc... and we're still evolving like every other species, it's a never ending story
But we are what we are, and we're not less or more because of that
Of coarse we are geneticly mammals but we are the only one that have to learn love and have the knowledge of good & evil. Animals don't know right or wrong, they only know instinct, the reason why animals have shorter lives its because the already know how to love.
I would give you a bible passage but I can't remember where it says, that we are th caretakers of earth.
Are you suggesting other animals don't know emotions (love?), good or bad? Most mammals, specially those who have developed brains, feel complex emotions (the link between a mother and a child is very strong!), if someone hurts their child they'll know it's evil in their perspective, cos good and evil will always be subjective. And they know what's right and wrong (for them), most animals, even the simplest ones, tend to live in community and they don't know 'only' instinct, they can actually learn, even bees can learn to search for only red flowers, for example, in a laboratory. Even a mouse won't eat every time another fellow mouse gets an electric shock when he reaches for food.
These were just some random examples to show you that, although the human being is one of the most complex animals on Earth, none of it's raw capabilities is completely exclusive to him.
I find it all beautiful, either way
Originally posted by OnetimePoster:
Originally posted by RekaG:
the reason why animals have shorter lives its because the already know how to love.
Finally learned how!
Lucky we lived for a hundred years!
Thank you very much, you just saved me a few minutes to find a picture like that one!
(Although I do often hear my dogs trying to talk to me, so I wouldn't doubt that animal have the ability to think, also how clever my oldest dog is, shes done some incredible things.)
Originally posted by RekaG:
Hey God didn't say we can't train animals, animals have the gift to sense danger and protect their masters if they can.
Tell that to any kind of cat, or any other solitary predator
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Macallan:
I've known cats that acted like guard dogs, so don't say all cats abandon owners.Originally posted by RekaG:
Hey God didn't say we can't train animals, animals have the gift to sense danger and protect their masters if they can.
Tell that to any kind of cat, or any other solitary predator
If they smell food on you it can encourage them to attack, but sometimes they think, they are playing if you are a trainer.....
Komodo Dragon, its a predator. Everything it does is pure instict, Including its incredible patients.
So someone finally got it, bravo.
Originally posted by RekaG:
Hey God didn't say we can't train animals, animals have the gift to sense danger and protect their masters if they can. When the masters abuse it confuses the animals. When a animal sees another animal get hurt they stay away or if its a mate or a family they would defend because its instinct. Animals don't know freewill if you let a animal out in the wild, depending on how you train and also how much it has adapted to life outside its natural inviroment, the animal would either die from starvation or survive on its natural instincts finding food and adapting. Animals can't sin and they don't go to hell.
(Although I do often hear my dogs trying to talk to me, so I wouldn't doubt that animal have the ability to think, also how clever my oldest dog is, shes done some incredible things.)
I cannot really answer to this when you put it in terms of God and (Heaven and) Hell. But I'll try
Instinct is obviously an important part of the animal life (we're in that group too) but many animals, specially mammals (we're in that group too) with developed brains (idem) know right from wrong (always a subjective matter). We're not that different from them, our raw capabilities are basically the same, except we're more complex in some areas.
Our notion of right or wrong, heaven and hell are, for me, an illusion (which doesn't mean I don't agree with most modern (religious) morals).
Originally posted by RekaG:
Originally posted by Macallan:
Originally posted by RekaG:
Hey God didn't say we can't train animals, animals have the gift to sense danger and protect their masters if they can.
Tell that to any kind of cat, or any other solitary predator
I've known cats that acted like guard dogs, so don't say all cats abandon owners.
Cats have no masters. They only tolerate you as long as you feed them, provide shelter etc.
Originally posted by RekaG:
If they smell food on you it can encourage them to attack, but sometimes they think, they are playing if you are a trainer.....
Don't delude yourself - they're trying to train you, not the other way around
Originally posted by RekaG:
Komodo Dragon, its a predator. Everything it does is pure instict, Including its incredible patients.
Which completely contradits that 'protect their masters' bit.
Originally posted by RekaG:
So someone finally got it, bravo.
Got what - that your claim is wrong?
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by pedrojosecarreira:
Our notion of right or wrong, heaven and hell are, for me, an illusion (which doesn't mean I don't agree with most modern (religious) morals).
The difference is that we know right from wrong without having to resort to a guy in the sky with a big stick who threatens us with eternal torture. Looks like these people never grew up.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Thabotizz:
Now, this is Macallan's definition of God
Originally posted by Macallan:
... guy in the sky with a big stick who threatens us with eternal torture.
No wonder he is so uptight about God.
Well, that's what the manual says. You should read it at some point
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Macallan:
Are you talking about The Bible? it doesn't that at all, I'd suggest the oldest KJV you can find without the "typo", (i.e. "The Wicked Bible")Originally posted by Thabotizz:
Now, this is Macallan's definition of God
Originally posted by Macallan:
... guy in the sky with a big stick who threatens us with eternal torture.
No wonder he is so uptight about God.
Well, that's what the manual says. You should read it at some point
Originally posted by RekaG:
Originally posted by Macallan:
Originally posted by Thabotizz:
Now, this is Macallan's definition of God
Originally posted by Macallan:
... guy in the sky with a big stick who threatens us with eternal torture.
No wonder he is so uptight about God.
Well, that's what the manual says. You should read it at some point
Are you talking about The Bible?
Well, obviously.
Originally posted by RekaG:
it doesn't that at all
For example:
Matthew 5:29 But if thy right eye be a snare to thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members perish, and not thy whole body be cast into hell.
The book is full of silliness labeled as 'sin' ( especially Leviticus ) and the NT is full of threats of 'hell', 'fire' etc. - quite obviously designed to label everyone a sinner no matter what and scare the gullible into your cult. Doesn't work quite as well as a couple hundred years ago.
Originally posted by RekaG:
I'd suggest the oldest KJV you can find without the "typo", (i.e. "The Wicked Bible")
Why on earth would I use that one when better translations are available?
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
It reffers to the sins of the flesh, It actually says: if it keeps you from God do away with it.
Originally posted by RekaG:
The verse is misunderstood, its actually not as literal as you think it is.
Oh really. So whatever you don't like is 'not as literal as you think it is', in other words you take the book and hammer it into what you want it to say.
Originally posted by RekaG:
It reffers to the sins of the flesh, It actually says: if it keeps you from God do away with it.
Oh look, that bit about hell just disappeared in a puff of sulphuric smoke!
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by RekaG:
I translate it far more literally, as basically saying that: "<i>If your right eye us f**ked (infected, useless, unrecoverable), then remove it, since you will be better off that way</i>"... and it doesn't say to "<i>cast thy heathens from thy neighborhood</i>" it's a long shot to compare a complete human, to a single body part, nor does it say anything about "<i>keeping you from God</i>"...It reffers to the sins of the flesh, It actually says: if it keeps you from God do away with it.
Granted, it's been a good 15 years since I read the Bible... so I don't remember the context, nor care for that matter...
But, Macallan has a point... that <b>if</b> someone takes it to mean the treatment of persons in a society, then it's promoting conformity to some arbitrary set of rules, otherwise everyone goes to hell... so you can't really wonder why racism, sexism, witch burnings, etc exist in a populace that largely translates it into such a way.
Anyways, "God" and the bible, are off-topic... the thread is about the first beings that could be classed as "humans", and what color their skin was.
Witch burning?, not even God tells anybody to do that, but he does warn his people to be careful.
Originally posted by RekaG:
Witch burning?, not even God tells anybody to do that, but he does warn his people to be careful.
Oh really:
Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
And the following verses aren't getting any better.
I suggest you read the whole thing instead of letting other people tell you what it does or doesn't say.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
If anybody ever read the book of Jonah, Niniveh was doomed! But they repented and thus they were saved.
Now to the original question? The torah says, God took the sand of the earth and created Adam. Look at the sand and tell me what colour it is? Brown! So, the brown skinned are the first!
Originally posted by Macallan:
Jesus died for our sins, all sins. So even a Witchs, Whores and Homosexuels can be saved. Old Testament is still a part of the law but the levittian law was fullfilled when Jesus died, we are in the grace period now, even the people who commited the most evil of sins can be excepted in God's kingdom. So every verse that says people should be killed, burn or stoned, for their sins, doesn't matter in this time period. God is not evil, some or most of his followers have distorted his image, mistranslated the bible, edited to hide the truth. I heard that someone wanted to make a full, correct re-translation but no one would let him do it. I'm tired of over censory, hey they have porn on cable. Whats wrong with a correct unedited translation?...I'd enjoy it.Originally posted by RekaG:
Witch burning?, not even God tells anybody to do that, but he does warn his people to be careful.
Oh really:
Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
And the following verses aren't getting any better.
I suggest you read the whole thing instead of letting other people tell you what it does or doesn't say.
I do admit, I need to read my Bible more often. I need to get over the fact I can't stop reading it, when I start reading it.
Originally posted by Thabotizz:
lol, sure... except, what about glass?Look at the sand and tell me what colour it is? Brown! So, the brown skinned are the first!
Originally posted by Macallan:
No actually, you know how I said animals only know "instinct", his reaction to the protection thing, actually proved a lot. Like if you starve a pitbull to death and its desperate to feed its puppies....What would you think would happen, I give you a clue, a man did the same and he's not on this green/brown and blue earth anymore.Originally posted by RekaG:
Originally posted by Macallan:
Originally posted by RekaG:
Hey God didn't say we can't train animals, animals have the gift to sense danger and protect their masters if they can.
Tell that to any kind of cat, or any other solitary predator
I've known cats that acted like guard dogs, so don't say all cats abandon owners.
Cats have no masters. They only tolerate you as long as you feed them, provide shelter etc.Originally posted by RekaG:
If they smell food on you it can encourage them to attack, but sometimes they think, they are playing if you are a trainer.....
Don't delude yourself - they're trying to train you, not the other way aroundOriginally posted by RekaG:
Komodo Dragon, its a predator. Everything it does is pure instict, Including its incredible patients.
Which completely contradits that 'protect their masters' bit.Originally posted by RekaG:
So someone finally got it, bravo.
Got what - that your claim is wrong?
Originally posted by Thabotizz:
God is merciful when you repent! But if you keep doing what is not right, then His wrath will be unto you.
If anybody ever read the book of Jonah, Niniveh was doomed! But they repented and thus they were saved.
Now to the original question? The torah says, God took the sand of the earth and created Adam. Look at the sand and tell me what colour it is? Brown! So, the brown skinned are the first!
Except for the skin color, like I said no one really actually knows, Only God does, we don't have that knowledge because people use it for evil. (i.e. descrimination, racism, etc)
Originally posted by RekaG:
Except for the skin color, like I said no one really actually knows, Only God does, we don't have that knowledge because people use it for evil. (i.e. descrimination, racism, etc)
I'm entitled to be wrong once in a while. (I can't always be right.) But I agree with you!
Originally posted by keloda:
The intelligentsians in this forum-that's if we have them-should not argue about this subject,atleast not as a debate.Anyone that've ever had a mere peep at a history board should not have any confusion about the cradle of human settlement/home.the least history-enlightened fela should voice africa as the cradle of creation(or darwinian evolution,huh).it is obvious,proven beyond doubt among series of erudites.But with retrospect to the nitty-gritty of this forum,i won't be least amazed,even amused,to see dudes sparring over the obvious.And as an extrovert,i wouldn't fail in my duty to provide additional enlightement for the hardened nitty-wittys! Though i know majority will crawl into next moment still dallying on the line of this argumental vanity. Am outa here
Originally posted by RekaG:
Originally posted by Macallan:
Jesus died for our sins, all sins. So even a Witchs, Whores and Homosexuels can be saved.Originally posted by RekaG:
Witch burning?, not even God tells anybody to do that, but he does warn his people to be careful.
Oh really:
Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
And the following verses aren't getting any better.
I suggest you read the whole thing instead of letting other people tell you what it does or doesn't say.
Oh, that bit about your god sacrificing himself to himself in order to get around a rule he made himself?
Originally posted by RekaG:
Old Testament is still a part of the law but the levittian law was fullfilled when Jesus died, we are in the grace period now, even the people who commited the most evil of sins can be excepted in God's kingdom.
Funny how there's nothing about that in the old testament and even the new testament has jesus say this:
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Until the heaven and the earth pass away, one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass.
Last time I checked heaven and earth hadn't passed away.
Originally posted by RekaG:
So every verse that says people should be killed, burn or stoned, for their sins, doesn't matter in this time period.
So, did the guy who wrote the book of Matthew lie? Or did jesus lie?
Originally posted by RekaG:
I heard that someone wanted to make a full, correct re-translation but no one would let him do it. I'm tired of over censory, hey they have porn on cable. Whats wrong with a correct unedited translation?...I'd enjoy it.
There are quite a few fairly recent translations which all claim to be correct and made from the best available sources but differ in things like the language used - some try to use contemporary english while others try to emulate the king james bible, some try to preserve stylistic variations while others go quite a few lengths to gloss over them. Some are intended for regular folks, others are intended for more serious, scholary purposes and all those criteria are sliding scales. Many of these translations are either public domain or freely available by other means.
Sites like biblegateway.com let you search and even side-by-side compare a crapload of different translations, not only english ones.
Originally posted by RekaG:
I do admit, I need to read my Bible more often. I need to get over the fact I can't stop reading it, when I start reading it.
It is interesting to compare translations made for different purposes, especially the more scholarly ones. For example, have a look at Darby's translation - its express purpose is to preserve style and tone of the original sources to give people who don't understand ancient greek, aramaic, hebrew etc. a way to study them. It's intentionally not made to be easily readable but it tells you a hell of a lot more about the source documents than the more mainstream translations.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
God wants us all, but so does Satan. Satan's goal is to drag everybody down with him. The reason a person that doesn't torment everybody is because he doesn't give a crap, because you have already dug your grave.
Originally posted by jax:
Theres a fact, about forums. Every thread can change subject especially if its topic that can easily turn into a dabate of Evolution v/s The Bible.There are a number of threads on the topic of hell already, Judeo-Christian-Islamic or Buddhist or otherwise. I would think this discussion would be more appropriate there.
it's all a matter of hair. those with the most hair are closest to the original homohairy.
Hair adorns the most basic of instincts, whereas the evolutionary process results in hair not growing on a busy street, to which my head hairstyle is a testimony.
As to origin, I like the idea of Dunstable, but Befordshire is not yet in Wessex, so that can't be right. On the other hand if we are to mix with everyone, I like what Dunstable has apparently to offer.
Africa used to be in Wessex you know but then went south (continental drift).
However there is an escape route where many of us are gathering to avoid Armagedon:
see The DnD Sanctuary for gaming, for discussions on Browsers or anything in particular, and just Lounging about.
Originally posted by Vernanda1:
all i know. the first to live on earth is adam. my religion tells that.
What was the family name?
Originally posted by string:
homohairy
That may be the ugliest word I've ever seen.
However there is an escape route where many of us are gathering to avoid Armagedon:
see The DnD Sanctuary for gaming, for discussions on Browsers or anything in particular, and just Lounging about.
Originally posted by Billymish:
I had debate with some guys which lead to race issue,whether white/black community are first to live/exist on Earth.
If any person know any link or any info regarding the issue,please post its all about proving a point.
hmm...
well going back in time... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Pangea_animation_03.gif i see any color is possible but not probable. think we can exclude http://www.fancydressretail.co.uk/images/large/21/21821.jpg . most likely is not black or white but brown. most of us still are and if not certainly want to be... http://www.getwaxed.com.au/tanning-services.html
yes all about genes
Originally posted by RekaG:
It reffers to the sins of the flesh, It actually says: if it keeps you from God do away with it.
Right I have but one sin of the flesh and I ain't whacking that off for anybody...
Edit: ( no pun intended.)
I am ungrateful to those teachers.
Kahlil Gibran
"The true teacher defends his pupils against his own personal influence. He inspires self-distrust. He guides their eyes from himself to the spirit that quickens him. He will have no disciple."
Amos Bronson Alcott
Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:
Originally posted by RekaG:
It reffers to the sins of the flesh, It actually says: if it keeps you from God do away with it.
Right I have but one sin of the flesh and I ain't whacking that off for anybody...
Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:
Edit: ( no pun intended.)
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
12. July 2010, 06:12:19 (edited)
Originally posted by trilogy5:
I think this debate is easy to settle. Scientist believe that the cradle of homo sapiens sapiens ( modern man) is somewhere in central Africa. Some of these people found the Equator to hot to handle and moved to cooler places in Europe and elsewhere. Those that stayed behind, through sun and evolution developed a dark skin. The point is you had to have a fair light skin for it to become dark. So early man had a light skin.
It's not that simple... you leave out several points.
like, if we were first... what about those other subspecies? neanderthal and co-magnon? where did they go? (and weren't they first?)
if we evolved In the area, we were obviously suited to that region... so why did we leave?
How many migrations out of the continent were there and where'd they go first? (not europe) why?
you are right about the skin tone (you'll have to answer those questions to find out why tho.)... but what does it matter?
Originally posted by trilogy5:
I think this debate is easy to settle. Scientist believe that the cradle of homo sapiens sapiens ( modern man) is somewhere in central Africa. Some of these people found the Equator to hot to handle and moved to cooler places in Europe and elsewhere. Those that stayed behind, through sun and evolution developed a dark skin. The point is you had to have a fair light skin for it to become dark. So early homo sapiens sapiens had a light skin to begin with.
The most commonly accepted theory is that the first humans had a dark skin. Some moved, as species do, to new areas. Those that wound up in places with relatively small amounts of sunlight, especially during the ice age, developed a light skin in response to this. The advantage of having a light skin over a dark skin in an environment like that is that you need less sunlight to generate the required amount of vitamin D. White skin and light eyes are a relatively recent developement in human history.
All this really show tho is skin color is irrelevant. Prolly none of us have the exact traits of the first members of our species. The conditions we evolved from simply do not exist in the place of our origins and we have since adapted to the world as it is now.