Jump to content


Photo

Question To Christian Creationists


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
17 replies to this topic

#1 Shadow

Shadow

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Midlands, England

Posted 14 November 2011 - 08:19 PM

If Adam and Eve existed, then is the entire population today related to adam and eve? If so, then how did different races come about, wouldn't you then have to embrace some pretty large mega evolutionary changes? It does not add up.

#2 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 15 November 2011 - 01:22 AM

God confused peoples language at the tower of Babel. Those that were given the same language and could communicate with each other went in their own directions together. This effectively divided the gene pool and isolated specific traits that we observe today.

We are all descendants of Adam, but during the flood only Noah and his family survived, so that would make Noah our recent common ancestor.

Noah was human and so is every race known today to a known genetic level of 99.9% similarity.

The .1% difference is attributed to SNP's (single nucleotide polymorphism) and not differences in their DNA so to say.

Posted Image


Enjoy.

#3 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 November 2011 - 07:44 AM

If Adam and Eve existed, then is the entire population today related to adam and eve?

Yes… And? According to scripture this is factual.

If so, then how did different races come about, wouldn't you then have to embrace some pretty large mega evolutionary changes? It does not add up.


Not at all… To the best of my knowledge, absolutely no one has a problem with adaptation within a kind/species, and the last I checked, both Adam and Eve were human. We are human as well, therefor there is absolutely no correlation between Adam and Us and macroevolution!

P1- Adam and eve were human
P2- We are human
C - We are descendants of humans, and therefore human

Now, if someone wants to quibble over the definitions between microevolution and adaptation within a kind/species, po-ta-to po-tah-to… But if someone wants to equivocate over the definition between MACRO-evolution and adaptation within a kind/species, they have a lot of “splain’n to do”.

#4 Shadow

Shadow

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Midlands, England

Posted 15 November 2011 - 10:47 AM

God confused peoples language at the tower of Babel.


Why would God do this? And also apart from the Bible, is there actually any empirical evidence for this? This is faith not science.

We are all descendants of Adam, but during the flood only Noah and his family survived, so that would make Noah our recent common ancestor.


So even eskimos who live in remote parts of the world are related to Noah? I do not see how you can get every race on earth from a single family a few 1000 years ago. Have you seen the world population today?

Noah was human and so is every race known today to a known genetic level of 99.9% similarity.


I think it's more like 96% I will try and find the paper for that.

Not at all… To the best of my knowledge, absolutely no one has a problem with adaptation within a kind/species, and the last I checked, both Adam and Eve were human


Yes, but you are saying that these changes happened in a span of what? Less than a few 1000 years?

Look at the Greek:

Posted Image

http://www.physorg.c...ontroversy.html - Picture is from Samuel Goerge Morton's data which has been recently confirmed by anthropologists.

Look at the differences in crania and racial phenotype. If this is to happen in less than a few 1000 years, then this is some pretty large scale evolutionary changes to happen in such a small amount of time how will that Greek turn into the Negroid or vise versa in such a small amount of time?, how is that skull size changing in the span of 1000 years? Are you advocating some kind of mega evolution here (within a kind), or was God personally involved with this.

I have debated a young earth creationist already on this, and he said to me "Gods hand came down and personally spread out the races and created those racial differences". - So a giant hand is coming down and doing this from the sky?

#5 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 15 November 2011 - 11:11 AM

Why would God do this? And also apart from the Bible, is there actually any empirical evidence for this? This is faith not science.


The bible is considered a historical text and is confirmed by archeology, so there is no reason to doubt the rest of it except unbelief.



So even eskimos who live in remote parts of the world are related to Noah? I do not see how you can get every race on earth from a single family a few 1000 years ago. Have you seen the world population today?


Yes. And according to the known rates of population growth it's hard to extrapolate back past a few thousand years.

To work out how quickly a population can grow, it’s very important to understand exponential growth. Starting from eight people after the Flood, the population would have to double only 30 times to reach 8.6 billion. Now there is a well-known ‘Rule of 72’, which says divide 72 by the percentage growth rate to get the time required for doubling.* E.g. if inflation is 8% p.a., then in 72/8 = 9 years, the cost of living will have doubled.

So what is a realistic growth rate? The Encyclopûdia Britannica claims that by the time of Christ, the world’s population was about 300 million. It apparently didn’t increase much up to AD 1000. It was up and down in the Middle Ages because of plagues etc. But may have reached 800 million by the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1750—an average growth rate of 0.13% in the 750 years from 1000–1750. By 1800, it was one billion while the second billion was reached by 1930—an average growth rate of 0.53% p.a. This period of population growth cannot be due to improved medicine, because antibiotics and vaccination campaigns did not impact till after WWII. From 1930 to 1960, when the population reached three billion, the growth rate was 1.36 % p.a. By 1974, the fourth billion was reached, so the average growth rate was 2.1% from 1960 to 1974. From 1974 to 1990, when the mark hit five billion, the growth rate had slowed to 1.4%. The increase in population growth since WWII is due to fewer deaths in infancy and through disease.

If the average growth rate were a mere 0.4 %, then the doubling time would be 180 years. Then after only 30 doublings or 5400 years, the population could have reached over eight billion.

If you want something more rigorous, there are standard mathematical formulû that can be used to calculate population growth. They must include birth and death rates as well as generation time. The simplest formula involves just a constant growth rate:

N = N0 (1 + g/100)t

where N is the population, N0 is the initial population, g is the percentage growth rate per year, and t is the time in years. Applying this formula to the population of eight surviving the Flood, and assuming a constant growth rate of 0.45% p.a. and 4500 years:

N = 8 (1.0045)4500 = 4.8 billion people.

Of course, the population growth hasn’t been constant, and would have been very fast just after the Flood. Thus this formula by itself cannot be used to prove a young earth. Look up the website article Young World Evidence—there is a section on population—if the world’s population had been in the millions for 100,000 years, then where are all their bodies?



I think it's more like 96% I will try and find the paper for that.



Evolutionists claim a closer percentage than that between humans and chimps. It's kind of odd that you know of research that claims 4% within our own specie. :huh:

I'll take it as a typo.


Yes, but you are saying that these changes happened in a span of what? Less than a few 1000 years?

Look at the Greek:

Posted Image

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-samuel-morton-skulls-center-controversy.html - Picture is from Samuel Goerge Morton's data which has been recently confirmed by anthropologists.

Look at the differences in crania and racial phenotype. If this is to happen in less than a few 1000 years, then this is some pretty large scale evolutionary changes to happen in such a small amount of time how will that Greek turn into the Negroid or vise versa in such a small amount of time?, how is that skull size changing in the span of 1000 years? Are you advocating some kind of mega evolution here (within a kind), or was God personally involved with this.



Based on what specific rate is it unlikely to occur within that time frame? Once again, this is a statement of unbelief rather than a scientific review of data.

Large scale morphological variation has been observed in only decades including larger head growth while remaining genetically identical to the parent population. Link

I'm assuming you believe that variation is the result of mutations and the teacher of the course told you that they take millions of years because Darwin told us all so.

Variation isn't the result of mutations at all; Rather, gene expression through a process known as pleiotropy.


Enjoy.

#6 Shadow

Shadow

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Midlands, England

Posted 15 November 2011 - 11:45 AM

The bible is considered a historical text and is confirmed by archeology


Then what about the Sanskrit writings and Vedic texts such as the four Vedas, Rigveda, Upanishads etc, and the other religious texts such as the Quran, the Torah? They are all confirmed by archeology aswell are they? They are confirmed by many people as historical texts. Or you just choose the Bible and reject the rest? I know Hindu creationists who take the Puranas as literal truth, the ancient writings of the Puranas put man back 2 billion years on earth and claim there was a nuclear warfare battled out on earth 1000s of years ago, and flying machines eixted etc and that his has all be confirmed by archeology. It is all down to personal interpretation. Though I agree that by looking at various ancient cave drawings and artwork there are things which do look like advanced weaponry. But we have never found any ancient drawings of Noah.

Evolutionists claim a closer percentage than that between humans and chimps. It's kind of odd that you know of research that claims 4% within our own specie.


You will see different data on the internet. Heres a 12% difference:

http://news.softpedi...ons-40872.shtml - 12 % of the DNA Differs Amongst Human Races and Populations

I'm assuming you believe that variation is the result of mutations and the teacher of the course told you that they take millions of years because Darwin told us all so.


Firstly, Darwin was a strict monogenist he believed all the races on earth were part of the same species and had come from the same origin, i believe this to be a fairytale so no, I did not buy the garbage they told us in school regarding origins. Darwin seems to have some very similar beliefs to YECS on this putting all the races back to the same origin and ancestor. It does not matter about mutations on this matter, mutations are not going to change that skull and crania size of a greek into a negroid or visa versa in a couple of 1000 of years (like yec says) or 60,000 to 100,000 like the darwinists say, this is actually a mystery which has never been truely solved, the standard view now is that "environmental pressures" caused the skull and racial phenotype to change, no further details, very few will touch the topic today becuase of politcal correctness. The truth of the matter is most likely that each race has a completey seperate origin (this was the standard scientific view up until 1940), but any data supporting this view is supressed from the media today as it is too unpolitical correct and anyone going down that route loses their job.

#7 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 November 2011 - 02:46 PM

Why would God do this?

If you read the text, you’ll soon figure it out, as it gives a pretty through explanation as to why…


This is faith not science.


As is most all explanations that have to do with macro evolution!



So even eskimos who live in remote parts of the world are related to Noah? I do not see how you can get every race on earth from a single family a few 1000 years ago. Have you seen the world population today?

Are they still human?



Yes, but you are saying that these changes happened in a span of what? Less than a few 1000 years?

More like four-thousand years… And are they still human?


I have debated a young earth creationist already on this, and he said to me "Gods hand came down and personally spread out the races and created those racial differences". - So a giant hand is coming down and doing this from the sky?


And I’ve debated many atheistic evolutionists who say “evolution did it”, and “nature did it”, and “its just so”… So basically they’re BOTH speaking from faith…










By the way, have you decided to totally skip post #3?

#8 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 15 November 2011 - 05:06 PM

Then what about the Sanskrit writings and Vedic texts such as the four Vedas, Rigveda, Upanishads etc, and the other religious texts such as the Quran, the Torah? They are all confirmed by archeology aswell are they? They are confirmed by many people as historical texts.


Never seen any evidence from archeology that they are.

It is all down to personal interpretation.


It is?



mutations are not going to change that skull and crania size of a greek into a negroid or visa versa in a couple of 1000 of years (like yec says) or 60,000 to 100,000 like the darwinists say, this is actually a mystery which has never been truely solved, the standard view now is that "environmental pressures" caused the skull and racial phenotype to change, no further details, very few will touch the topic today becuase of politcal correctness.


I go by the empirical data that is available. And those mutation rates verify a Mtdna Eve of ~6,000 years Link. They also said the morphological changes in the lizards posted earlier would take millions of years, but that is another example that no empirical measure is used in their hypothesis. Asserting "It isn't possible" isn't evidence of anything.


Fusion of human chromosome 2 is evidence of a recent human bottleneck dating to ~3,000 years ago. Close to the date given for a global flood, but an incredible 50 orders of magnitude younger than the evolutionists prediction for the MRCA.

Again, it is entirely possible, quite likely in fact, that our human ancestors underwent a chromosomal fusion event during a population bottleneck in fairly recent history (i.e., within the past several thousand years at most), easily explaining the fusion of chromosome 2. This concept is supported by an article published in a 2003 issue of Nature by Rohde et. al. where the authors make the following argument:

"These analyses suggest that the genealogies of all living humans overlap in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular, the MRCA [most recent common ancestor] of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago [~3,000] in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors."
Link



From the known data that isn't circular, I see no evidence that all races aren't descended from ancestors in the few thousand year range.


Enjoy.

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 November 2011 - 01:44 AM

If Adam and Eve existed, then is the entire population today related to adam and eve? If so, then how did different races come about, wouldn't you then have to embrace some pretty large mega evolutionary changes? It does not add up.


Question: If you ponder a Creator, then how would you not know that the Creator did not already include all the needed information in Adam and Eve's DNA to branch off all that we see? Science already knows that certain areas in DNA can be turned off and on. And that through generations that things that are off can be turned on and visa versa. Making the next generation different.

Also, it is claimed by every evolutionist that evolution is about adapting to ones environment. But there is a life form that defies this. A life form that can change the actual weather to suit it's needs. Even unto the point that it can effect weather around the world. How does a life form evolve the ability to change it's environment instead of following evolution and adapting to it?

http://www.nasa.gov/...nktoncloud.html

http://www.spacedail...oceans-04p.html

#10 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 November 2011 - 07:27 AM

It seems that Shadow is not entirely serious about answering the evidences against his assertions... Just another example to use I suppose.

#11 Ophiolite

Ophiolite

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Peripatetic

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:09 AM

But if someone wants to equivocate over the definition between MACRO-evolution and adaptation within a kind/species, they have a lot of “splain’n to do”.

I take it you meant the distinction between, rather than the definition between. If that was not the case then you need to clarify your meaning for me if I am to respond. If that is what you meant then as I suspect you are aware the position of evolutionists is that adaptation within a species builds over time towards macro-evolution. You may dispute that this occurs, but the relationship between these two processes is as I have stated. i.e. the distinction between them, from an evolutionists viewpoint, is simply one of duration and hence of magnitude.

#12 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 November 2011 - 08:59 AM

I take it you meant the distinction between, rather than the definition between. If that was not the case then you need to clarify your meaning for me if I am to respond.


Yes, indeed, that was a typo. Thanks for catching it.


If that is what you meant then as I suspect you are aware the position of evolutionists is that adaptation within a species builds over time towards macro-evolution.


Of course, and evolutionists proceed so on faith alone (see Argumentum ad Futuris), as there is absolutely no empirical evidence for macro-evolution. So, when it is posited as a fact, the evolutionist is standing on dishonest ground alone. And if the evolutionist defends such a proposition with the zeal of dogmatism, they are being exceedingly religious.


You may dispute that this occurs, but the relationship between these two processes is as I have stated.

In fact, it is easy to dispute, as it has never happened (because there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support macroevolution). Further, in order for you to assert such a proposition, it then becomes incumbent upon YOU to provide said empirical evidence that it DID happen. But, if you are going to assert that it “will” happen in the future, OR that there “will” be evidence adduced to support macroevolution sometime in the future, you once again fall into the morass of “Argumentum ad Futuris” still.


i.e. the distinction between them, from an evolutionists viewpoint, is simply one of duration and hence of magnitude.


Hence “Argumentum ad Futuris” via “Assertum Non Est Demonstratum”

#13 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 November 2011 - 10:26 PM

I take it you meant the distinction between, rather than the definition between. If that was not the case then you need to clarify your meaning for me if I am to respond. If that is what you meant then as I suspect you are aware the position of evolutionists is that adaptation within a species builds over time towards macro-evolution. You may dispute that this occurs, but the relationship between these two processes is as I have stated. i.e. the distinction between them, from an evolutionists viewpoint, is simply one of duration and hence of magnitude.


Worms don't adapt incrementally into fish, amphibians, tetrapods, birds, etc. That idea requires huge amounts of genetic changes and that idea should be rejected because no observed adaptation (out of 1000's of observed examples) has ever been the result of genetic novelty. It's akin to testing the predictions of gravity 759 times without it ever working once. Should we test it once more and expect a different result?




Yup. Out of millions of species adapting before our very eyes, not a single one has fulfilled the promises that Dawkins parades as science.

His faith that it happened millions of years ago is evidence that we should dispose of faith within science. :lol:

The irony here is that 120 libraries and every leading biologist across Europe kept Mendel's law of heredity from publication and recognition for over 35 years and genetics remains the enemy of evolution to this very day. Link



Happy Thanksgiving. ;)

#14 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 December 2011 - 04:58 AM

It seems neither Shadow or Ophiolite want to deal with their assumed claims anymore.

#15 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 19 December 2011 - 05:06 AM

shadow said the torah.lol

the christian bible has the torah in it! its called the first five books of the bible.

the jews in the most part do see that genesis is too be taken literally.

#16 Ophiolite

Ophiolite

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Peripatetic

Posted 19 December 2011 - 05:41 AM

Of course, and evolutionists proceed so on faith alone (see Argumentum ad Futuris), as there is absolutely no empirical evidence for macro-evolution.

There is abundant evidence in the fossil record for macro-evolution. You can choose to ignore, or misinterpret that evidence to protect your belief system, but the evidence will still be there.

In fact, it is easy to dispute, as it has never happened (because there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support macroevolution). Further, in order for you to assert such a proposition, it then becomes incumbent upon YOU to provide said empirical evidence that it DID happen.

I do not require to provide even a millligram of evidence that it did happen, since in the strictest scientific sense no such assertion is made. Rather I assert that the best available explanation for the empiricial evidence is that it did happen and until new evidence, or new, more palusible interpretations of the existing evidence, arise - then that is where we remain. So what new evidence, or ore plausible interpretation of the existing evidence do you offer?

It seems neither Shadow or Ophiolite want to deal with their assumed claims anymore.

Assumed claim makes no sense as a phrase. Perhaps you meant claim based on assumption. Assumptions in science are rigorously tested by further observation, or experimentation. I have no difficulty making claims based upon assumptions that have subsquently been validated. Much in the way you are comfortable working on the assumption that the Bible is the word of God. (How was your validation of that assumption achieved?)

#17 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 December 2011 - 06:30 AM




Of course, and evolutionists proceed so on faith alone (see Argumentum ad Futuris), as there is absolutely no empirical evidence for macro-evolution.


There is abundant evidence in the fossil record for macro-evolution.



Really? If that were the case then you could provide a continual and gradual transitional fossil record showing a sea creature to land animal to ape-like creature to modern man; or a continual and gradual transitional fossil record showing a sea creature to land animal to ape-like creature to modern apes. But as it is, you simply stack some skulls willy-nilly Side by side, chock full of gaps and presupposition (evolution of the gaps) and claim wah-lah; macro evolution!
To which I say “please, provide this abundant evidence you claim to have”!



You can choose to ignore, or misinterpret that evidence to protect your belief system, but the evidence will still be there.



So, you are claiming that macroevolution is a fact then? Are you going to back your belief system up with the empirical scientific facts then?



In fact, it is easy to dispute, as it has never happened (because there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support macroevolution). Further, in order for you to assert such a proposition, it then becomes incumbent upon YOU to provide said empirical evidence that it DID happen.


I do not require to provide even a millligram of evidence that it did happen, since in the strictest scientific sense no such assertion is made. Rather I assert that the best available explanation for the empiricial evidence is that it did happen and until new evidence, or new, more palusible interpretations of the existing evidence, arise - then that is where we remain.


Actually, yes, whenever one makes an assertion as if it were fact, then they ARE required to provide ACTUAL evidence to their assertions. And earlier in this post you said “There is abundant evidence in the fossil record for macro-evolution.” Therefore it is incumbent upon YOU to provide said empirical evidences.

But now, it seems that YOU are backing off your initial claims that “There is abundant evidence in the fossil record for macro-evolution.”, when you then (rather weakly claim) “I assert that the best available explanation for the empiricial evidence… Yaddah-Yaddah” (the rest of your claim is nothing more than the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Futuris). Here’s the thing Ophiolite, you cannot “have your cake and eat it too”, because when you make a claim, you WILL be required to provide the actual evidence (empirical) to support it, or you WILL be exposed as making nothing more than faith statements.

#18 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 19 December 2011 - 07:34 AM

Then what about the Sanskrit writings and Vedic texts such as the four Vedas, Rigveda, Upanishads etc, and the other religious texts such as the Quran, the Torah? They are all confirmed by archeology aswell are they? They are confirmed by many people as historical texts. Or you just choose the Bible and reject the rest? I know Hindu creationists who take the Puranas as literal truth,...

I'd rather ask why the bible is singled out for "higher criticism" and excluded as evidence even of a circumstantial kind, while it's OK to use the rest as historical sources.

...Though I agree that by looking at various ancient cave drawings and artwork there are things which do look like advanced weaponry. But we have never found any ancient drawings of Noah.

How do you know there aren't such drawings ... or for that matter other literary art works/document that represent him?


You will see different data on the internet. Heres a 12% difference:
http://news.softpedi...ons-40872.shtml - 12 % of the DNA Differs Amongst Human Races and Populations

Interesting, it seems it often depends on how one counts and what methods are applied:

Previous studies focused on analyzing polymorphism (variation) in DNA nucleotidic bases. But the new approach tackled deletions or duplications of code among relatively long sequences of individual DNA and then compared the so-called copy number variations (CNVs) across individuals from different human breeds. This method uncovered a complex, higher-order variation in the code and better explains why some populations or races are vulnerable to certain diseases and respond well to specific drugs, while counterparts swiftly fall sick or never respond to treatment.

I wonder what this new approach and method would uncover, if applied to the DNA of chimps, which is then compared with human DNA.


Firstly, Darwin was a strict monogenist he believed all the races on earth were part of the same species and had come from the same origin, i believe this to be a fairytale so no, I did not buy the garbage they told us in school regarding origins. Darwin seems to have some very similar beliefs to YECS on this putting all the races back to the same origin and ancestor. ...

Which also would require one first human pair, right? And then OEE use proposed single pairs as argument against animal pairs surviving the global flood on an ark. I just wonder how they deal with non-S@xual reproduction?

Anyway, I think mutation and selection as well as initial variety have already been mentioned as reasons for racial variation amongst humans. And then of course there is the possibility of genetic modification after the flood. Just as languages have been confounded (You were asking for evidence earlier, you are aware that there are people that speak quite different languages from English, are you?), genetics could have been modified after the flood. The blessing in "and Noah blessed his sons" (Gen9:1f) may after all have a deeper meaning, then just some religious ritual. That said, the life span of people did obviously also change and one can assume genetic reasons for this as well. Of course my theory of genetic modification to suit the conditions after the flood isn't proven to full extent, so more research would have to be done.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users