The Problem of Darwin and DNA

[Syriusly]

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

Know personally or on this forum? Personally, I agree, but the subject doesn't come up in polite conversation. However, I've been to a few churches where people took the Bible literally. It didn't come up, but clearly one can't take the Bible literally and accept science at the same time.

I take what the Bible says at 100% face value..

Where is the evidence of a flood that covered the entire earth that killed all life except the pairs of animals on the ark?

Interestingly - many ancient people's have myths involving severe floods, so there must have been catastrophic floods at different times in the ancient worlds. But the world was very small then - to ancient people. A catastrophic flood wouldn't have had to be that widespread.

The problem with the ark thing is - we'd have horrific genetic bottlenecks in every known species including our own if this was true. No evidence for that

Oh I agree- there are lots of origin myths that include floods- but for the Bible to be literal, the flood would have had to cover the entire earth40

17 The flood continued forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; 20 the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

So Mount Everest was covered by water......

And then the ark came to rest in one place- and somehow Galapagos tortoises made it from Mt. Ararat to the Galapagos on their own.....

 

[Coyote]

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

Know personally or on this forum? Personally, I agree, but the subject doesn't come up in polite conversation. However, I've been to a few churches where people took the Bible literally. It didn't come up, but clearly one can't take the Bible literally and accept science at the same time.

I take what the Bible says at 100% face value..

Where is the evidence of a flood that covered the entire earth that killed all life except the pairs of animals on the ark?

Interestingly - many ancient people's have myths involving severe floods, so there must have been catastrophic floods at different times in the ancient worlds. But the world was very small then - to ancient people. A catastrophic flood wouldn't have had to be that widespread.

The problem with the ark thing is - we'd have horrific genetic bottlenecks in every known species including our own if this was true. No evidence for that

Oh I agree- there are lots of origin myths that include floods- but for the Bible to be literal, the flood would have had to cover the entire earth40

17 The flood continued forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; 20 the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

So Mount Everest was covered by water......

And then the ark came to rest in one place- and somehow Galapagos tortoises made it from Mt. Ararat to the Galapagos on their own.....

Exactly....

 

[Divine Wind]

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

Know personally or on this forum? Personally, I agree, but the subject doesn't come up in polite conversation. However, I've been to a few churches where people took the Bible literally. It didn't come up, but clearly one can't take the Bible literally and accept science at the same time.

I take what the Bible says at 100% face value..

Where is the evidence of a flood that covered the entire earth that killed all life except the pairs of animals on the ark?

Interestingly - many ancient people's have myths involving severe floods, so there must have been catastrophic floods at different times in the ancient worlds. But the world was very small then - to ancient people. A catastrophic flood wouldn't have had to be that widespread.

The problem with the ark thing is - we'd have horrific genetic bottlenecks in every known species including our own if this was true. No evidence for that

Agreed about many ancient stories of floods. Valleys were common areas for agricultural but were also susceptible to the "1000 year rain" problem of catastrophic flooding. It would wipe out entire villages along the valley.

As for the Bible, Noah existed thousands of years before Moses and it was Moses who wrote down the first five books of the Bible. So where were the stories before? Living memory. Stories told around nomadic campfires.

 

[Asclepias]

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.t.

I think you are giving Weather too much credit.

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact.

The only problem I see in the OP's assertions here is that mutations are destructions and "no new information can be created". The links I posted to "jumping genes" explain how RAPID transitions in evolution can be made. WITHOUT ADDING (physically inserting) new DNA.

This is because the DNA is not a static program. Genes can lie unexpressed for ages and suddenly be switched on. Like with the retroviruses that Coyote linked to -- All this REDUNDANT material is already there !!!

And the jumping genes can literally be like the "RESTORE" function on your computer. Bringing back ancient features that never activated in that plant/animal before.

If he really believes that mutations are destructions then he is calling white people inferior. The gene to have light skin is a mutation.

 

[flacaltenn]

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.t.

I think you are giving Weather too much credit.

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact.

The only problem I see in the OP's assertions here is that mutations are destructions and "no new information can be created". The links I posted to "jumping genes" explain how RAPID transitions in evolution can be made. WITHOUT ADDING (physically inserting) new DNA.

This is because the DNA is not a static program. Genes can lie unexpressed for ages and suddenly be switched on. Like with the retroviruses that Coyote linked to -- All this REDUNDANT material is already there !!!

And the jumping genes can literally be like the "RESTORE" function on your computer. Bringing back ancient features that never activated in that plant/animal before.

If he really believes that mutations are destructions then he is calling white people inferior. The gene to have light skin is a mutation.

I know man. I have to catch a lot of cosmic rays just to fix that defect.. Makes me vulnerable to predators at night also..

 

[Syriusly]

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.t.

I think you are giving Weather too much credit.

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact.

The only problem I see in the OP's assertions here is that mutations are destructions and "no new information can be created". The links I posted to "jumping genes" explain how RAPID transitions in evolution can be made. WITHOUT ADDING (physically inserting) new DNA.

This is because the DNA is not a static program. Genes can lie unexpressed for ages and suddenly be switched on. Like with the retroviruses that Coyote linked to -- All this REDUNDANT material is already there !!!

And the jumping genes can literally be like the "RESTORE" function on your computer. Bringing back ancient features that never activated in that plant/animal before.

If he really believes that mutations are destructions then he is calling white people inferior. The gene to have light skin is a mutation.

I know man. I have to catch a lot of cosmic rays just to fix that defect.. Makes me vulnerable to predators at night also..

I wonder which of the people on Noah's Ark were white, which were Asian and which were black.

And how did the Australian Aboriginals get from the Ark to Australia?

 

[Asclepias]

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.t.

I think you are giving Weather too much credit.

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact.

The only problem I see in the OP's assertions here is that mutations are destructions and "no new information can be created". The links I posted to "jumping genes" explain how RAPID transitions in evolution can be made. WITHOUT ADDING (physically inserting) new DNA.

This is because the DNA is not a static program. Genes can lie unexpressed for ages and suddenly be switched on. Like with the retroviruses that Coyote linked to -- All this REDUNDANT material is already there !!!

And the jumping genes can literally be like the "RESTORE" function on your computer. Bringing back ancient features that never activated in that plant/animal before.

If he really believes that mutations are destructions then he is calling white people inferior. The gene to have light skin is a mutation.

I know man. I have to catch a lot of cosmic rays just to fix that defect.. Makes me vulnerable to predators at night also..

I wonder which of the people on Noah's Ark were white, which were Asian and which were black.

And how did the Australian Aboriginals get from the Ark to Australia?

All of them had to be Black. You cant get Black people from white people for starters. Thats genetics 101 Also whites did not come about until about 7K years ago. The Aborigines are known to be one of the first groups to migrate out of Africa. The first 2 Chinese dynasties were Black people.

 

[Asclepias]

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.t.

I think you are giving Weather too much credit.

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact.

The only problem I see in the OP's assertions here is that mutations are destructions and "no new information can be created". The links I posted to "jumping genes" explain how RAPID transitions in evolution can be made. WITHOUT ADDING (physically inserting) new DNA.

This is because the DNA is not a static program. Genes can lie unexpressed for ages and suddenly be switched on. Like with the retroviruses that Coyote linked to -- All this REDUNDANT material is already there !!!

And the jumping genes can literally be like the "RESTORE" function on your computer. Bringing back ancient features that never activated in that plant/animal before.

If he really believes that mutations are destructions then he is calling white people inferior. The gene to have light skin is a mutation.

I know man. I have to catch a lot of cosmic rays just to fix that defect.. Makes me vulnerable to predators at night also..

The mutation weaken your ability to take the rays of the sun but it did allow you to better absorb vitamin D.

 

[Divine Wind]

All of them had to be Black. You cant get Black people from white people for starters. Thats genetics 101 Also whites did not come about until about 7K years ago. The Aborigines are known to be one of the first groups to migrate out of Africa. The first 2 Chinese dynasties were Black people.

Ummm, wrong again, but I've come to expect that out of racists on this forum regardless of their associations with different cultures and geographies.

 

[flacaltenn]

I think you are giving Weather too much credit.

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact.

The only problem I see in the OP's assertions here is that mutations are destructions and "no new information can be created". The links I posted to "jumping genes" explain how RAPID transitions in evolution can be made. WITHOUT ADDING (physically inserting) new DNA.

This is because the DNA is not a static program. Genes can lie unexpressed for ages and suddenly be switched on. Like with the retroviruses that Coyote linked to -- All this REDUNDANT material is already there !!!

And the jumping genes can literally be like the "RESTORE" function on your computer. Bringing back ancient features that never activated in that plant/animal before.

If he really believes that mutations are destructions then he is calling white people inferior. The gene to have light skin is a mutation.

I know man. I have to catch a lot of cosmic rays just to fix that defect.. Makes me vulnerable to predators at night also..

I wonder which of the people on Noah's Ark were white, which were Asian and which were black.

And how did the Australian Aboriginals get from the Ark to Australia?

All of them had to be Black. You cant get Black people from white people for starters. Thats genetics 101 Also whites did not come about until about 7K years ago. The Aborigines are known to be one of the first groups to migrate out of Africa. The first 2 Chinese dynasties were Black people.

You're taking this much too politically. I can make a coffee latte child with the right partner. Is that defective DNA?

The answer to your Noah ark quiz is --- Noah was carrying enough recessive pigment genes to keep your hope alive !!!!

 

[Asclepias]

All of them had to be Black. You cant get Black people from white people for starters. Thats genetics 101 Also whites did not come about until about 7K years ago. The Aborigines are known to be one of the first groups to migrate out of Africa. The first 2 Chinese dynasties were Black people.

Ummm, wrong again, but I've come to expect that out of racists on this forum regardless of their associations with different cultures and geographies.

As always saying I am wrong is totally different from proving it. You always make this mistake and everyone already knows you have nothing but objections bereft of any facts.

 

[Asclepias]

The only problem I see in the OP's assertions here is that mutations are destructions and "no new information can be created". The links I posted to "jumping genes" explain how RAPID transitions in evolution can be made. WITHOUT ADDING (physically inserting) new DNA.

This is because the DNA is not a static program. Genes can lie unexpressed for ages and suddenly be switched on. Like with the retroviruses that Coyote linked to -- All this REDUNDANT material is already there !!!

And the jumping genes can literally be like the "RESTORE" function on your computer. Bringing back ancient features that never activated in that plant/animal before.

If he really believes that mutations are destructions then he is calling white people inferior. The gene to have light skin is a mutation.

I know man. I have to catch a lot of cosmic rays just to fix that defect.. Makes me vulnerable to predators at night also..

I wonder which of the people on Noah's Ark were white, which were Asian and which were black.

And how did the Australian Aboriginals get from the Ark to Australia?

All of them had to be Black. You cant get Black people from white people for starters. Thats genetics 101 Also whites did not come about until about 7K years ago. The Aborigines are known to be one of the first groups to migrate out of Africa. The first 2 Chinese dynasties were Black people.

You're taking this much too politically. I can make a coffee latte child with the right partner. Is that defective DNA?

The answer to your Noah ark quiz is --- Noah was carrying enough recessive pigment genes to keep your hope alive !!!!

If you can make a coffee latte child then your partner must have some dominant DNA. i cant call your DNA defective because its all subjective. Your DNA is superior in cold climates mine in hot climates. I'm not taking this politically. Sometimes people dont feel my dry humor.

 

[Divine Wind]

As always saying I am wrong is totally different from proving it. You always make this mistake and everyone already knows you have nothing but objections bereft of any facts.

Correct. Of course, you saying you're correct without ever offering evidence and/or proof is totally different from actually being correct.

Do you have any evidence you are correct? If so, please present it now or admit it's just your opinion. Are you honest enough admit this to be true?

 

[Coyote]

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.t.

I think you are giving Weather too much credit.

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact.

The only problem I see in the OP's assertions here is that mutations are destructions and "no new information can be created". The links I posted to "jumping genes" explain how RAPID transitions in evolution can be made. WITHOUT ADDING (physically inserting) new DNA.

This is because the DNA is not a static program. Genes can lie unexpressed for ages and suddenly be switched on. Like with the retroviruses that Coyote linked to -- All this REDUNDANT material is already there !!!

And the jumping genes can literally be like the "RESTORE" function on your computer. Bringing back ancient features that never activated in that plant/animal before.

If he really believes that mutations are destructions then he is calling white people inferior. The gene to have light skin is a mutation.

Which...when you consider where light skinned people evolved, is actually an advantage in northern climates when it comes to sunshine and vitamin D. The melanin that protects dark skinned people in southern climates from sun damage reduces their ability to form Vit D.

 

[Asclepias]

As always saying I am wrong is totally different from proving it. You always make this mistake and everyone already knows you have nothing but objections bereft of any facts.

Correct. Of course, you saying you're correct without ever offering evidence and/or proof is totally different from actually being correct.

Do you have any evidence you are correct? If so, please present it now or admit it's just your opinion. Are you honest enough admit this to be true?

You claimed i was wrong. Prove it.

 

[Divine Wind]

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.t.

I think you are giving Weather too much credit.

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact.

The only problem I see in the OP's assertions here is that mutations are destructions and "no new information can be created". The links I posted to "jumping genes" explain how RAPID transitions in evolution can be made. WITHOUT ADDING (physically inserting) new DNA.

This is because the DNA is not a static program. Genes can lie unexpressed for ages and suddenly be switched on. Like with the retroviruses that Coyote linked to -- All this REDUNDANT material is already there !!!

And the jumping genes can literally be like the "RESTORE" function on your computer. Bringing back ancient features that never activated in that plant/animal before.

If he really believes that mutations are destructions then he is calling white people inferior. The gene to have light skin is a mutation.

Which...when you consider where light skinned people evolved, is actually an advantage in northern climates when it comes to sunshine and vitamin D. The melanin that protects dark skinned people in southern climates from sun damage reduces their ability to form Vit D.

I honestly don't know, nor care, about the melanin vs. vitamin D content theories. A lot of evolution is chance. Pure fucking luck.

Is sickle cell anemia bad luck or a sign of inferiority? Color blindness? The fact remains that all of humanity is 99.5% genetically alike. Why do we make such a BFD about that 0.5%? My best guess is psychology. There's something in us about it. My theory is the natural evolutionary survival trait of xenophobia.

 

[Divine Wind]

You claimed i was wrong. Prove it.

Prove a negative? Sorry I cannot.

Sir, you made a claim. Please back it up with facts.

 

[Coyote]

Another fascinating tidbit on human genetics is sometimes mutations are hazardous when homozygous but beneficial when heterozygous - sickle cell disease would be an advantage. If the person has only one gene, enough of his cells are normal that they don't cause health issues but they provide some benefit when it comes to malaria.

Or - our special adaptations to environmental extremes. We evolved in a hot climate and the human body is much better at adapting to heat then to cold. But indiginous people in northern regions such as the Inuit have a 50% higher basal metabolism rate and fewer sweat glands.

 

[Coyote]

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.t.

I think you are giving Weather too much credit.

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact.

The only problem I see in the OP's assertions here is that mutations are destructions and "no new information can be created". The links I posted to "jumping genes" explain how RAPID transitions in evolution can be made. WITHOUT ADDING (physically inserting) new DNA.

This is because the DNA is not a static program. Genes can lie unexpressed for ages and suddenly be switched on. Like with the retroviruses that Coyote linked to -- All this REDUNDANT material is already there !!!

And the jumping genes can literally be like the "RESTORE" function on your computer. Bringing back ancient features that never activated in that plant/animal before.

If he really believes that mutations are destructions then he is calling white people inferior. The gene to have light skin is a mutation.

Which...when you consider where light skinned people evolved, is actually an advantage in northern climates when it comes to sunshine and vitamin D. The melanin that protects dark skinned people in southern climates from sun damage reduces their ability to form Vit D.

I honestly don't know, nor care, about the melanin vs. vitamin D content theories. A lot of evolution is chance. Pure fucking luck.

Is sickle cell anemia bad luck or a sign of inferiority? Color blindness? The fact remains that all of humanity is 99.5% genetically alike. Why do we make such a BFD about that 0.5%? My best guess is psychology. There's something in us about it. My theory is the natural evolutionary survival trait of xenophobia.

I care because I find it fascinating.

There is a natural evolutionary survival trait in xenophobia. It makes a hell of a lot of sense when we existed in a primative state. I suspect we're hard wired to a certain extent...but, we also seemed wired to be more cooperative with outside groups then say chimps.

 

[Asclepias]

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.t.

I think you are giving Weather too much credit.

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact.

The only problem I see in the OP's assertions here is that mutations are destructions and "no new information can be created". The links I posted to "jumping genes" explain how RAPID transitions in evolution can be made. WITHOUT ADDING (physically inserting) new DNA.

This is because the DNA is not a static program. Genes can lie unexpressed for ages and suddenly be switched on. Like with the retroviruses that Coyote linked to -- All this REDUNDANT material is already there !!!

And the jumping genes can literally be like the "RESTORE" function on your computer. Bringing back ancient features that never activated in that plant/animal before.

If he really believes that mutations are destructions then he is calling white people inferior. The gene to have light skin is a mutation.

Which...when you consider where light skinned people evolved, is actually an advantage in northern climates when it comes to sunshine and vitamin D. The melanin that protects dark skinned people in southern climates from sun damage reduces their ability to form Vit D.

I honestly don't know, nor care, about the melanin vs. vitamin D content theories. A lot of evolution is chance. Pure fucking luck.

Is sickle cell anemia bad luck or a sign of inferiority? Color blindness? The fact remains that all of humanity is 99.5% genetically alike. Why do we make such a BFD about that 0.5%? My best guess is psychology. There's something in us about it. My theory is the natural evolutionary survival trait of xenophobia.

The mutation that created sickle cell is actually a benefit. It fights malaria.