If evolution was true, then the eskimo's would not need to make winter cloths for themselves. Why? Because based on evolution they should have evolved furs to protect them from the ash winter.


May be someday, the eskimo's will grow furs

Over to the wise men!

More rubbish!

Ranchhoddas:
More rubbish!

And what is the rubbish? just keep quiet if u av ntn to say pls

adjoviomole:



And what is the rubbish? just keep quiet if u av ntn to say pls

If you insist on criticizing something, the least you should do, (the least any sensible person should do) is to at least acquire a rudimentary understanding of that which you wish to criticize.

Ranchhoddas:
If you insist on criticizing something, the least you should do, (the least any sensible person should do) is to at least acquire a rudimentary understanding of that which you wish to criticize.

Do u even know anything about evolution?. Go and learn jare n stop disturbing me. U know nothing at all.

EyeHateGod:

adjoviomole:
If evolution was true, then the eskimo's would not need to make winter cloths for themselves. Why? Because based on evolution they should have evolved furs to protect them from the ash winter. May be someday, the eskimo's will grow furs
Over to the wise men!

The Eskimos don't need to grow their own fur because evolution has already given them the ability to hunt animals and wear their fur.

Seun:
The Eskimos don't need to grow their own fur because evolution has already given them the ability to hunt animals and wear their fur.

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seun le nu e!! Haaaa....smh and facepalm at the same time.

So people in Paris evolved to start designing clothes and waering them.

People in China evolved to becoming fabricators and geeks and sending their products to Nigeria


Nigerians evolved to importers and not manufacturers and globetrotters abi?

Seun Seun Seun how many times did I call you....

4everGod1:
WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seun le nu e!! Haaaa....smh and facepalm at the same time.

So people in Paris evolved to start designing clothes and waering them.

People in China evolved to becoming fabricators and geeks and sending their products to Nigeria


Nigerians evolved to importers and not manufacturers and globetrotters abi?

Seun Seun Seun how many times did I call you....

No, that's wrong. The big brain evolved in Africa. The first eskimos who moved to the north pole already had the ability to make clothes.

Seun:
That's completely wrong. The big brain evolved in Africa. The first eskimos who moved to the north pole already had the ability to make clothes.

*facepalm* again!


So is the ability to make clothes part of the evolutionary process the OP is talking about?

Did the eskimos develop needles for fingers or threads for hair?

I do not think you fully understood the OP

adjoviomole:
If evolution was true, then the eskimo's would not need to make winter cloths for themselves. Why? Because based on evolution they should have evolved furs to protect them from the ash winter.


May be someday, the eskimo's will grow furs

Over to the wise men!

The Eskimo only recently moved to their cold icy habitat ( less than 10,000 years). That is not enough time to naturally adapt completely to the cold environment, and besides as oga Seun rightly pointed out, the Eskimos survive by borrowing the furs of animals adapted to the cold. Without animal furs, Eskimo would not have survived in the artic environment, they would have gone extinct or migrated to warmer climate.

Humans evolved out of Africa, so there was no need of furs. Having said that, the ones that migrated to colder regions had to evolve physical adaptations that enabled them cope better with the cold, like long straight hairs, white pale skin, long narrow pointed nose, smaller lips, etc.

4everGod1:
So is the ability to make clothes part of the evolutionary process the OP is talking about?

Did the eskimos develop needles for fingers or threads for hair?

They won't evolve fur on their bare skins unless hairiness increases an Eskimo's chance of survival. Since they have clothes, this isn't the case.

Seun:

They won't evolve fur on their bare skins unless hairiness increases an Eskimo's chance of survival. Since they have clothes, this isn't the case.

So what you are saying is that if they had remained Naked they would have developed fur?

if this were to be the case then how is it that all babies regardless of their region while in the womb have a fur like covering called Lanugo and this helps keep them warm while in the womb and they lose this fur around the 32nd to 36th week before birth....including those of eskimo babies...Isnt it logical and proper for evolution under natural selection to retain the fur of eskimo babies?

4everGod1:



So what you are saying is that if they had remained Naked they would have developed fur?

if this were to be the case then how is it that all babies regardless of their region while in the womb have a fur like covering called Lanugo and this helps keep them warm while in the womb and they lose this fur around the 32nd to 36th week before birth....including those of eskimo babies...Isnt it logical and proper for evolution under natural selection to retain the fur of eskimo babies?

Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Lunagi helps keep babies warm while in the mother's womb? Do you have an idea of the temperature of the mothers womb?
Do you know that a foetus passes through the evolutional history ( appearance that is) within its 9 months developmental period. Within that period it has a gill and a tail. All these disappear as it form fully into a human baby.

wirinet:

Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Lunagi helps keep babies warm while in the mother's womb? Do you have an idea of the temperature of the mothers womb?
Do you know that a foetus passes through the evolutional history ( appearance that is) within its 9 months developmental period. Within that period it has a gill and a tail. All these disappear as it form fully into a human baby.

smh and do you know that evolutionists claim that life began from a single cell and it took us billions of years to evolve to whom we are today yet it takes th single cell in a womans womb just 9 months to become a full blown human?

That 9 months the single celled egg divides and further divides and then becomes a zygote and an embryo with gills and fishlike and then takes the shape of a human all in 9 months.

Did evolution suddenly find a way of speeding up the process now?

4everGod1:
So what you are saying is that if they had remained Naked they would have developed fur?

Actually, a bunch of naked people moving into current Eskimo territory would have just died. A slightly less unrealistic scenario is if we never developed the ability to make clothes to insulate our bodies. In that case, we would probably have evolved to grow thick fur for winter.

if this were to be the case then how is it that all babies regardless of their region while in the womb have a fur like covering called Lanugo and this helps keep them warm while in the womb and they lose this fur around the 32nd to 36th week before birth....including those of eskimo babies...Isnt it logical and proper for evolution under natural selection to retain the fur of eskimo babies?

Lanugo has nothing to do with keeping babies warm. Being inside the body of a warm-blooded, fully-clothed mother is what does that.

wirinet:

Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Lunagi helps keep babies warm while in the mother's womb? Do you have an idea of the temperature of the mothers womb?
Do you know that a foetus passes through the evolutional history ( appearance that is) within its 9 months developmental period. Within that period it has a gill and a tail. All these disappear as it form fully into a human baby.

smh and do you know that evolutionists claim that life began from a single cell and it took us billions of years to evolve to whom we are today yet it takes th single cell in a womans womb just 9 months to become a full blown human?

That 9 months the single celled egg divides and further divides and then becomes a zygote and an embryo with gills and fishlike and then takes the shape of a human all in 9 months.

Did evolution suddenly find a way of speeding up the process now?

FYI the temperature in the womb is slightly below body temperature which is why a womans temperature increases and gets warmer and remains so for the first 3 months of pregnancy as this warmth helps to preserve the life of the baby.

so if the temperature in the womb isnt icy cold and yet the baby has the lanugo fur covering why not retain it since the parents somehow should be able to genetically transmit a gene that helps the baby retain the fur and not discard it at 36 weeks.

Seun:

Actually, a bunch of naked people moving into current Eskimo territory would have just died. A slightly less unrealistic scenario is if we never developed the ability to make clothes to insulate our bodies. In that case, we would probably have evolved to grow thick fur for winter.


Lanugo has nothing to do with keeping babies warm. Being inside the body of a warm-blooded, fully-clothed mother is what does that.

Read up Seun

4everGod1:
smh and do you know that evolutionists claim that life began from a single cell and it took us billions of years to evolve to whom we are today yet it takes th single cell in a womans womb just 9 months to become a full blown human?

That 9 months the single celled egg divides and further divides and then becomes a zygote and an embryo with gills and fishlike and then takes the shape of a human all in 9 months.

Did evolution suddenly find a way of speeding up the process now?

DNA is, among other things, is a biological "software" that guides the process of turning an embryo into a full grown animal. Evolution primarily alters this development process. It's intuitive that "writing" a piece of software takes much longer than "running" it after it's been written.

4everGod1:
Read up Seun

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=lanugo+function
"It helps to hold the vernix in place to ensure your baby's delicate skin doesn't become chapped by the long immersion in amniotic fluid."

Seun:

DNA is, among other things, is a biological "software" that guides the process of turning an embryo into a full grown animal. Evolution primarily alters this development process. It's intuitive that "writing" a piece of software takes much longer than running it after it's been written.

So which did we come from? Simple evolution or DNA process?

We are not to be compared to a computer system. We are 10000000 times more complex. If we can evolve from a single cell in 9 months with the aid of DNA as you put it then at what point in the evolutionary process did DNA come into play.

Plus if DNA did come into play then surely evolution should not have taken billions of years because already between 100AD and 2016 BC we have had roughly 2000 yrs and world population has grown by millions so am I not supposed to be seeing various stages of further evolution from these millions as each is a representation of a fresh line of evolutionary process attempted millions of times within this period.

See as I just dey look.

Seun:

DNA is, among other things, is a biological "software" that guides the process of turning an embryo into a full grown animal. Evolution primarily alters this development process. It's intuitive that "writing" a piece of software takes much longer than "running" it after it's been written.


https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=lanugo+function
"It helps to hold the vernix in place to ensure your baby's delicate skin doesn't become chapped by the long immersion in amniotic fluid."

Lanugo also provides warmth. I am married with kids so I know. I suggest you ask a gynaecologist for confirmation.

Also its known that every human or animal is a full representation of an evolutionary process so when 20million of such subjects reproduce that is 20million different evolutionary processes running daily worldwide so when evolution is looked at it should not be in years but in number of reproductions or processes it takes or took to evolve so how come if we have probably 50million indians reproducing or Chinese reproducing and all are fresh evolutionary reproductive samples I do not see a change from these 50milion samples of which some might be twins or triplets thereby increasing the number of subjects and evolutionary processes.

4everGod1:
So which did we come from? Simple evolution or DNA process?

This is a baffling question. Evolution alters DNA, of course.

We are not to be compared to a computer system. We are 10000000 times more complex. If we can evolve from a single cell in 9 months with the aid of DNA as you put it then at what point in the evolutionary process did DNA come into play.

We don't evolve from a single cell in 9 months. The DNA contains a biological code that makes a fertilized egg develop into a baby and after the baby is born, guides the development of the baby into an adult. What the process of evolution does is that, it takes the software for a particular animal and then alters it so it would develop into something that can survive better in a particular environment. So you could have a fish, and then the routine that develops the fin is altered so it develops legs instead. The routine for the tail could be halted if it's not needed. Different animals can look very similar in the womb due to the fact that all animals run modified versions of the same original DNA "software".

Plus if DNA did come into play then surely evolution should not have taken billions of years

DNA is written not by a programmer but by random mutations and natural selection, which take a lot of time to develop major features.

Seun:

This is a baffling question. Evolution alters DNA, of course.


We don't evolve from a single cell in 9 months. The DNA contains a biological code that makes a fertilized egg develop into a baby and after the baby is born, guides the development of the baby into an adult. What the process of evolution does is that, it takes the software for a particular animal and then alters it so it would develop into something that can survive better in a particular environment. So you could have a fish, and then the routine that develops the fin is altered so it develops legs instead. The routine for the tail could be halted if it's not needed. Different animals can look very similar in the womb due to the fact that all animals run modified versions of the same original DNA "software".


DNA is written not by a programmer but by random mutations and natural selection, which takes a lot of time to develop major features.

I suggest you read this your post again so you would see how crazy this theory sounds.

So DNA can help fast track everything and in the process we pass through looking a cell to fishlike to then human all in 9 months yet you say evolution helps us adapt by altering certain features like giving fish legs right? So the baby in the womb was it concieved nd start growing with legs in the womb? Remember ot began from a simple single cell so to you thats not what evolution depicts.

You also mentioned natural selection....Evolutionists declare that man is the pinnacle of evolution yet via the same law of natural selection man could not borrow the best from all other of his evolutionary processes.

We still do not have the best eyesight of all creatures, We do not have the best smell (nose), We do not have the strongest jaw, We do not have the ability to regrow lost limbs like lizards regrow tails, we do not have the ability to camouflage ourselves like chameleons do, we do not have the greatest hearing for all sound frequencies, and so on.

The law of natural selection should have easily dealt with this problem but no it did not but somehow other "lesser" animals got the best of these aforementioned things....


when you reason it deeply I am sure even you would have doubts about evolution as its filled with suppositions and probabilities and outlandish assumptions with questionable or no proof besides the cloak and dagger story of it taking billions of years to happen.

So if we as humans are billions of years from the first evolutionary process thise clearly states that we are still evolving which was why I I gave the example of human reproduction..... If 50million people 1000yrs ago began reproducing then by now we would have had 250million or more reproductive cycles individually yet with no evolutionary change in sight or even the slightest hint of it.

wirinet:

The Eskimo only recently moved to their cold icy habitat ( less than 10,000 years). That is not enough time to naturally adapt completely to the cold environment, and besides as oga Seun rightly pointed out, the Eskimos survive by borrowing the furs of animals adapted to the cold. Without animal furs, Eskimo would not have survived in the artic environment, they would have gone extinct or migrated to warmer climate.

Humans evolved out of Africa, so there was no need of furs. Having said that, the ones that migrated to colder regions had to evolve physical adaptations that enabled them cope better with the cold, like long straight hairs, white pale skin, long narrow pointed nose, smaller lips, etc.

Aiit so what u mean now is that in the future the eskimo's will still grow fur shey?

Seun:
The Eskimos don't need to grow their own fur because evolution has already given them the ability to hunt animals and wear their fur.

Let's view it frm ur own angle, d eskimo's adapt by killing other animals for food and fur, so basically it is unfavorable
For the animals. So based on how evolution works and on what led to animals to evolve, this animals should av evolved to something else rather dan to remain preys for dis humans. So why is it nt happening?

adjoviomole:




Aiit so what u mean now is that in the future the eskimo's will still grow fur shey?

I doubt. The Eskimo already has fur (albeit artificial ones), without it the Eskimo would not have survived in the arctic environment in the first place.

wirinet:


I doubt. The Eskimo already has fur (albeit artificial ones), without it the Eskimo would not have survived in the arctic environment in the first place.

smh in pity!

.

adjoviomole:




Aiit so what u mean now is that in the future the eskimo's will still grow fur shey?

Ever heard of fire?
Clothes of fur?
Normal clothes?
ever heard of technology?

Stop codons?

raphieMontella:
Ever heard of fire? Clothes of fur? Normal clothes? ever heard of technology?
Stop codons?

So technology is now evolution now abi ? I don hear una o