Blue eye gene

[patricia1]

thanks Lorax, so then my daughter who has blue eyes can have both recessive genes dormant until she has children or meets someone with one recessive green eye gene? She wants to have green eyes like me...it is so interesting. I know there are other discussions going on here but just wondered about the longevity of yesteryears and wonder if God had done something to decrease the longevity.

I know that envirnmental stuff had a lot to do with it, medical diseased as well. But why were kings dying at fourteen?

[MorningGlory]

Still waiting for a reply to posts 42 & 43, artsylady.

Btw, Jukia, I agree with EricH. You weaken your/our position by simply telling someone to learn some science. It is far more effective (and polite) to instead tell them in what specific ways they are wrong.

Sorry, but often the creationists who post on this and other boards are sooooo off the track that I feel it a better response to suggest they actually do attempt to "learn some science". There are often posts with misinformation/distortions/fabrications in every other sentence. Would simply take too much time to parse it all out for specific suggestions.

It would only be appropriate to tell others to 'learn some science' if one was well versed in scientific matters themselves......

[nebula]

Well the ability will have come with the evolution of our more sophisticated brains, but you'd have to look to linguistics, not evolution, for how language itself developed. In other words, the development of our ability for language is the realm of evolution, but the development of language itself is linguistics, not evolution.

So in other words - we couldn't have linguistics without the development of our ability to have language, and if we had developed the ability to have language but didn't have linguistics we'd have a useless series of mutations?

[MorningGlory]

So in other words - we couldn't have linguistics without the development of our ability to have language, and if we had developed the ability to have language but didn't have linguistics we'd have a useless series of mutations?

What did you just say, nebula.........????? I think it's over my head.

[artsylady]

hello all. i am just checking in. i am on a foreign keyboard and it is driving me crazy .... i figured all keyboards were the same but no... i might try back on my own laptop in a few dayz. i

[nebula]

So in other words - we couldn't have linguistics without the development of our ability to have language, and if we had developed the ability to have language but didn't have linguistics we'd have a useless series of mutations?

Your point boils down to:

We need powerful brains for language, but why would we have evolved powerful brains if evolution didn't have language in mind?

The point seems rather silly when rephrased thusly, doesn't it?

Of course, because that isn't what I said.

Do you have any idea whatsoever how many different areas of the brain have to work together in order for us to have a thought (or feeling), put the thought or feeling into words, and then vocalize that thought?

But for simplicity, let me re-word my question:

We couldn't have linguistics without the Broca's area, and if we had developed the Broca's area but didn't have linguistics we'd have a useless series of mutations?

Obviously our big brains would have other benefits than just language, like problem solving and tool construction. Luckily for linguistics, the same brainpower that created pointy sticks also created Shakespeare.

I disagree - the two tasks utilize different regions of the brain.

[Fraught]

FresnoJoe

Oh The Wounds We Bare Showing You Our Beliefs

You Are Forgiven

Rascal

That's not what I meant. I didn't mean all artsylady's beliefs were hypocritical, I just meant I find it weird that she and other creationists demand more and more proof of evolution despite the mountain already presented when she is willing to accept her 'assertion' on the basis of a hunch. The same goes for Giaour's guess that "we got different skin colors and eye colors when God scattered mankind all over the earth." What is this based on? I can guarantee that it is based on less than evolution, yet here their hypotheses stand, accepted.

i guess it depends on whether you think that common sense is 'less' than evolution. if common sense is too simple a concept for you, substitute inductive or deductive reasoning.

[nebula]

Evolving the Broca's area wouldn't be a useless series of mutations even if we didn't develop language. Even this limited section of the brain has uses other than human language. It is present in animals, after all, who do not have this skill. They use it for communicative tasks that humans adapted and expanded to complex language.

And how is it that humans were able to "adapt and expand" those tasks into complex language whereas the other animals have not?

Besides, wouldn't any form of rudimentary language capabilities be evolutionarily advantageous?

This has nothing to do with the question.

[The Lorax]

thanks Lorax, so then my daughter who has blue eyes can have both recessive genes dormant until she has children or meets someone with one recessive green eye gene?

Since your daughter has blue eyes then she must only have one recessive green eye allele. (If she had both, then she would have green eyes.) So if she marries a man with green eyes, her kids will each have a 50% chance of having green eyes.

I know there are other discussions going on here but just wondered about the longevity of yesteryears and wonder if God had done something to decrease the longevity.

I know that envirnmental stuff had a lot to do with it, medical diseased as well. But why were kings dying at fourteen?

Not quite sure what you mean by yesteryears, but in prehistoric times most people didn't live past 35 due to the rigors of living in the wild. It was just a harder life back then. Fast forward to today and unfortunately longevity seems to be dropping again, at least in America, due to an increasingly unhealthy diet and lifestyle. I heard that my generation (20 - 30) is the first that won't live longer than their parents.

[nebula]

nebula

And how is it that humans were able to "adapt and expand" those tasks into complex language whereas the other animals have not?

Can you please clarify whether your questions are now directed at evolution or linguistics? I have absolutely no knowledge of linguistics, so if you are asking about the development of language, you'll have to direct your questions somewhere else.

The fact that we humans have developed the ability to speak and understand complex language while the other animals cannot have nothing to do with evolution?

Are you saying that if we could somehow find and recreate the circumstances in which early humans first developed what we call speech, and if we were to put chimpanzees in those circumstances, that they have all the neural processes and connections needed to begin developing complex speech as well?