<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Evolution of Skin Color</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ocellated.com/2006/05/05/evolution-of-skin-color/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ocellated.com/2006/05/05/evolution-of-skin-color/</link>
	<description>A blog on nature, science, religion, and just about anything else I want to post on</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:41:55 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: JLem</title>
		<link>http://www.ocellated.com/2006/05/05/evolution-of-skin-color/#comment-537</link>
		<dc:creator>JLem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2006 20:23:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ocellated.com/2006/05/05/evolution-of-skin-color/#comment-537</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;It’s not that the cells and vitamins aren’t important (try living without them!), it’s just that without evolution, they lack their context and all perspective is lost.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I couldn't agree more.  As Dobzhansky summed it up for us in 1973,  "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>It’s not that the cells and vitamins aren’t important (try living without them!), it’s just that without evolution, they lack their context and all perspective is lost.</p></blockquote>
<p>I couldn&#8217;t agree more.  As Dobzhansky summed it up for us in 1973,  &#8220;nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Cherfas</title>
		<link>http://www.ocellated.com/2006/05/05/evolution-of-skin-color/#comment-536</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Cherfas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2006 17:49:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ocellated.com/2006/05/05/evolution-of-skin-color/#comment-536</guid>
		<description>Nice post. I was aware of the Vitamin D story -- including the additional factoid that cheeks, which are more exposed to light than other parts in polar regions, are pink because they are even more transparent -- but not the folate side of things. Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice post. I was aware of the Vitamin D story &#8212; including the additional factoid that cheeks, which are more exposed to light than other parts in polar regions, are pink because they are even more transparent &#8212; but not the folate side of things. Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jay</title>
		<link>http://www.ocellated.com/2006/05/05/evolution-of-skin-color/#comment-535</link>
		<dc:creator>Jay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2006 16:59:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ocellated.com/2006/05/05/evolution-of-skin-color/#comment-535</guid>
		<description>Mary, perhaps like &lt;em&gt;everything&lt;/em&gt; in science, this is an explanation that is considered far more useful in explaining the data than past understandings we've had on the subject. And this explanation is submitted for the approval of other scientists who work in these areas. The official stance in science on what's true or not, is largely a consensus activity.

It's so hard to get people who want absolute unchanging truths to understand. Like any understanding in science, the explanation for skin color is always up for review. One day someone may find problems with this interpretation that I've presented and offer a better explanation. Once again, it's up to the rest of the scientific community whether the new explanation is found necessary or convincing.

So to answer your question more directly, we could call the distrubtion of different skin colors across the globe as &lt;em&gt;facts&lt;/em&gt; -- easily verifiable sets of data. &lt;em&gt;Any&lt;/em&gt; explanation that seeks to explain these facts will &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; be a theory.

In this case, I think many scientists find the authors explanation convincing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mary, perhaps like <em>everything</em> in science, this is an explanation that is considered far more useful in explaining the data than past understandings we&#8217;ve had on the subject. And this explanation is submitted for the approval of other scientists who work in these areas. The official stance in science on what&#8217;s true or not, is largely a consensus activity.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s so hard to get people who want absolute unchanging truths to understand. Like any understanding in science, the explanation for skin color is always up for review. One day someone may find problems with this interpretation that I&#8217;ve presented and offer a better explanation. Once again, it&#8217;s up to the rest of the scientific community whether the new explanation is found necessary or convincing.</p>
<p>So to answer your question more directly, we could call the distrubtion of different skin colors across the globe as <em>facts</em> &#8212; easily verifiable sets of data. <em>Any</em> explanation that seeks to explain these facts will <em>always</em> be a theory.</p>
<p>In this case, I think many scientists find the authors explanation convincing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mary Riedel</title>
		<link>http://www.ocellated.com/2006/05/05/evolution-of-skin-color/#comment-534</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary Riedel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2006 16:38:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ocellated.com/2006/05/05/evolution-of-skin-color/#comment-534</guid>
		<description>Wow, Jay, that's interesting stuff.  I've often wondered about that myself.  So is this fact now, or just a theory?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, Jay, that&#8217;s interesting stuff.  I&#8217;ve often wondered about that myself.  So is this fact now, or just a theory?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
