The Physiology of Punch Resistance

[QueensburyRules]

Of course not. But there is considerable variation for certain human traits. I mean comparing how many people will have different amounts of toe, finger digits, if we consider this a trait that is rarely variated, to something like eye color, it gives us a range. Size, density, and specifically bone density are traits that have considerable variation, there need not be any mechanism for evolution to see the appearance of variation in a population.

If we look at Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution correctly, first of all: It is apparent that big changes that cause evolutionary jumps take a very long time... But the mechanism for how different traits develop is often poorly understood. The environment never creates a trait: The environment subtracts traits by eliminating the organisms that are produced with certain traits. So, if we have a society of fishermen who have to do dock work... The most successful dock workers will create more offspring, gradually dock workers with less bone density, muscle mass, will no longer be produced. These weaker workers will die out earlier, and not reproduce with the same frequency.

- - Sorta like had Ginsberg procreated wif Kerouac, that wif DNA advances by 2050 may be possible, your clone may pop out en utero fully formed…Voila!!!

[Rockin']

Drop any computer off of a desk.

Will it mess something up?, Probably.

The brain bouncing off of the skull is similar.

The brain bouncing off of the Occipital Spur and tearing.

The sheet that keeps fighters up at night.

Oh, and those shots to the temple, that sheet'll mess you up.................Rockin'

[Rockin']

- - Sorta like had Ginsberg procreated wif Kerouac, that wif DNA advances by 2050 may be possible, your clone may pop out en utero fully formed…Voila!!!

The world could use a billeau3, great idea! .................Rockin'

[billeau2]

The world could use a billeau3, great idea! .................Rockin'

Queenie thought that when we asked him to find some "proof" it meant the proof of his whiskey... so naturally he hit the bottle.

[Rockin']

Queenie thought that when we asked him to find some "proof" it meant the proof of his whiskey... so naturally he hit the bottle.

I'll toke to that.................Rockin'

[Willie Pep 229]

Of course not. But there is considerable variation for certain human traits. I mean comparing how many people will have different amounts of toe, finger digits, if we consider this a trait that is rarely variated, to something like eye color, it gives us a range. Size, density, and specifically bone density are traits that have considerable variation, there need not be any mechanism for evolution to see the appearance of variation in a population.

If we look at Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution correctly, first of all: It is apparent that big changes that cause evolutionary jumps take a very long time... But the mechanism for how different traits develop is often poorly understood. The environment never creates a trait: The environment subtracts traits by eliminating the organisms that are produced with certain traits. So, if we have a society of fishermen who have to do dock work... The most successful dock workers will create more offspring, gradually dock workers with less bone density, muscle mass, will no longer be produced. These weaker workers will die out earlier, and not reproduce with the same frequency.

Don't agree with the bold face.

E.g. Hairy Arabs and bald Scandinavians. Hair protects from the sun not the cold. We need Vitman D from the sun. Northern Europeans became bald because protection from the sun was no longer needed and conversely the northern Europeans needed more sun-skin interaction.

Now of course these are all surface adjustments and not relative to evolutionary mutations.

I agree with your assessment that evolutionary mutations (advancements) are not caused by environmental factors but do instead weed out the less successful mutations. But there are surface (appearance) changes that are environmentally related and happen quickly (evolutionary wise).

How bone density splits that difference I don't know.

[QueensburyRules]

Don't agree with the bold face.

E.g. Hairy Arabs and bald Scandinavians. Hair protects from the sun not the cold. We need Vitman D from the sun. Northern Europeans became bald because protection from the sun was no longer needed and conversely the northern Europeans needed more sun-skin interaction.

Now of course these are all surface adjustments and not relative to evolutionary mutations.

I agree with your assessment that evolutionary mutations (advancements) are not caused by environmental factors but do instead weed out the less successful mutations. But there are surface (appearance) changes that are environmentally related and happen quickly (evolutionary wise).

How bone density splits that difference I don't know.

- - How do you explain Valuev?

BigFoot?

[billeau2]

Don't agree with the bold face.

E.g. Hairy Arabs and bald Scandinavians. Hair protects from the sun not the cold. We need Vitman D from the sun. Northern Europeans became bald because protection from the sun was no longer needed and conversely the northern Europeans needed more sun-skin interaction.

Now of course these are all surface adjustments and not relative to evolutionary mutations.

I agree with your assessment that evolutionary mutations (advancements) are not caused by environmental factors but do instead weed out the less successful mutations. But there are surface (appearance) changes that are environmentally related and happen quickly (evolutionary wise).

How bone density splits that difference I don't know.

It is the mechanism of how traits emerge... Traits are eliminated, if sun protection is no longer needed, that trait will not be eliminated as frequently, less bald scandinavians will die out early, making the gene pool, reproduction now including more bald headed scandinavians.

A mutation, which may semantically be described as an actual trait that emerges, are usually traits that are either very recessive, and some change brings them out, so they can compete with other traits in the organism's environment, or there is some "jump." But this so called "jump" There is debate... Because truly, there is no real proof of it, only the absence of evidence that led to the jump/change.

Perfect example: Anthropologists continue to look for some missing link that could possibly describe how apes became modern humans... They search for this because the assumption is primates developed a certain way and there is plenty of proof of how humans emerged... The problem is the time frame (in addition to a lack of evidence missing links) with which humankind emerged: Hence, it must be some radical mutation, departure, condition... or the theory is not true regarding human kind, and we are not native to this planet.

Another way to view this fallicy: Look at a timeline for the progression of life as we understand it based on Theory of Evolution. Look at how long it took for single cells, then sea, plant life, and use this progression consistently. You could, using this theory, describe most evolutionary changes... You can show me evrything from a modern Squirrel with traits that make them desirable to humans, hence more cute squirrels reproducing, from when they were rat looking critters lol... BUT what you cannot show through the theory is accounting for how apes got a thumb and turned to humans in a span of very little time, with no real missing links (some, some.... very little proof). The following is strictly my opinion: Mutation when used as a way to describe such jumps is incorrect.

My point is, the Theory of Evolution is a great theory, it describes a lot, it is useful, but it must be understood correctly: lest we think the environment "gives" traits and does not narrow down the traits to those most beneficial to the organism... and if you understand this first statement, you understand the theory cannot adequtly explain how we evolved, because whether it is called a mutation, or otherwise, it is essentially a false equivalency regarding the concept of mutation and organisms.

Bone density is relatively easy to describe as a trait. If you lived in a society near the water, chances are over many moons, heavy bone density would kill off more people than light bone structure... meanwhile, if you were in an inland area where strength ruled the roost, the opposite effect would occur. Different Genes would be expressed through elimination, and through desirability... Light men tall and wise would become the apple of a girl's eye, versus musclebound men... Hence variability and a range for the trait.

[them_apples]

It is the mechanism of how traits emerge... Traits are eliminated, if sun protection is no longer needed, that trait will not be eliminated as frequently, less bald scandinavians will die out early, making the gene pool, reproduction now including more bald headed scandinavians.

A mutation, which may semantically be described as an actual trait that emerges, are usually traits that are either very recessive, and some change brings them out, so they can compete with other traits in the organism's environment, or there is some "jump." But this so called "jump" There is debate... Because truly, there is no real proof of it, only the absence of evidence that led to the jump/change.

Perfect example: Anthropologists continue to look for some missing link that could possibly describe how apes became modern humans... They search for this because the assumption is primates developed a certain way and there is plenty of proof of how humans emerged... The problem is the time frame (in addition to a lack of evidence missing links) with which humankind emerged: Hence, it must be some radical mutation, departure, condition... or the theory is not true regarding human kind, and we are not native to this planet.

Another way to view this fallicy: Look at a timeline for the progression of life as we understand it based on Theory of Evolution. Look at how long it took for single cells, then sea, plant life, and use this progression consistently. You could, using this theory, describe most evolutionary changes... You can show me evrything from a modern Squirrel with traits that make them desirable to humans, hence more cute squirrels reproducing, from when they were rat looking critters lol... BUT what you cannot show through the theory is accounting for how apes got a thumb and turned to humans in a span of very little time, with no real missing links (some, some.... very little proof). The following is strictly my opinion: Mutation when used as a way to describe such jumps is incorrect.

My point is, the Theory of Evolution is a great theory, it describes a lot, it is useful, but it must be understood correctly: lest we think the environment "gives" traits and does not narrow down the traits to those most beneficial to the organism... and if you understand this first statement, you understand the theory cannot adequtly explain how we evolved, because whether it is called a mutation, or otherwise, it is essentially a false equivalency regarding the concept of mutation and organisms.

Bone density is relatively easy to describe as a trait. If you lived in a society near the water, chances are over many moons, heavy bone density would kill off more people than light bone structure... meanwhile, if you were in an inland area where strength ruled the roost, the opposite effect would occur. Different Genes would be expressed through elimination, and through desirability... Light men tall and wise would become the apple of a girl's eye, versus musclebound men... Hence variability and a range for the trait.

Before darwinism, I’m curious what the intellectuals of the day described traits or generational inheritance.

Caesar would always speak of cultures and how they developed, he even said so himself that civilization (confined quarters and a diet of mostly carbs is what made the romans shorter. The legionaires were generally made up of specially selected individuals from all races (under roman rule) they weren’t all italian. The min height in the legions was 5 ft 10 unless the person showed particularly robust genetics, exceptions could be made.

then my previous point, how he described the northern germans as very large and muscular as well as confident. He then stated it was because of living lawlessly and eating meat + fighting constantly all the time (weaker ones would be killed off or not even make it past youth). Before anyone laughs at this notion, it’s proven that dogs when left to live without rules (farm dogs for example). Given proper food, live much, much longer than domesticated/house dogs. Obviously not taking into account environmental dangers. I believe the worlds oldest dog was just over 30 (still alive) its owners said he never had a leash in its entire life and lived on a farm by its own accord. Even had its own door to get into the house.

[Willie Pep 229]

- - How do you explain Valuev?

BigFoot?

Virus damaged DNAs meet, the broken strands are filled randomly causing ******ation, mutation, and exceptions.

It is the latest hypothesis as to the cause of mutations. I.e. viruses are a tool of evolution.