[Sticks]

Originally posted by Sophii3x
Me neither
And if Adam & Eve were white how are there mixed races

Hmm this has got me thinking

OK

Item 3

A full treatment of this is done here

Imagine a grid of genes, some dominant and some recessive, which control melanin in the skin

In humans, production of the skin coloring agent melanin is controlled by two pairs of genes. We can designate them Aa and Bb, the capital letters representing dominant genes and the small letters recessive genes. A and B, being dominant, produce melanin very well; being recessive, a and b produce melanin to a lesser degree.

so we have

[img=300x300]http://www.apologeticspress.org/image/rr/skin.jpg[/img]

If Adam and Eve both had been aabb, they could have had only children that were aabb, that being the lightest coloration possible. Then, the world would contain no other groupings. But it does. So, this option also is ruled out by a process of elimination.

The real question is this: Is there a mechanism by which the racial characteristics which we see today could have originated with one human couple—in the short, few thousand year or so history of the Earth?

The answer is a resounding yes! If Adam and Eve had been “heterozygous” (AaBb; two dominant, two recessive genes), they would have been middle-brown in color. And, from them—in one generation—racial differences could have occurred quite easily.

I hope that clears this up

[Sticks]

Originally posted by easypeasy
That would mean that brothers and sisters would have had sex with each other. Ew

thats nothing, if you believe Darwins "theory of evolution" you believe that early man/woman had sex with chimps......... [/quote]


Please

Evolution does not teach that we came from chimps or apes, just that humans chimps and apes come from a common ancestor.

Sexual reproduction would occur only between members of the same species, with the changes occuring due to mutations and those mutations being locked in due to natural selection. The trouble is we have never documented in nature a beneficial mutation. All the mutations we see are harmful and natural selection selects against them.

[Lauren]

Originally posted by Sticks

thats nothing, if you believe Darwins "theory of evolution" you believe that early man/woman had sex with chimps.........

Please

Evolution does not teach that we came from chimps or apes, just that humans chimps and apes come from a common ancestor.

Sexual reproduction would occur only between members of the same species, with the changes occuring due to mutations and those mutations being locked in due to natural selection. The trouble is we have never documented in nature a beneficial mutation. All the mutations we see are harmful and natural selection selects against them. [/quote]

What about when moths changed their colours after the industrial era? When they became darker to mesh with the dark tree's to hide from predators. Was this caused by a mutation?

[easypeasy]

Originally posted by Sticks

thats nothing, if you believe Darwins "theory of evolution" you believe that early man/woman had sex with chimps.........

Please

Evolution does not teach that we came from chimps or apes, just that humans chimps and apes come from a common ancestor.

Sexual reproduction would occur only between members of the same species, with the changes occuring due to mutations and those mutations being locked in due to natural selection. The trouble is we have never documented in nature a beneficial mutation. All the mutations we see are harmful and natural selection selects against them. [/quote]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0518075823.htm
http://www.boston.com/news/science/a...d_after_split/
http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...7545394809.htm
1.2 million years of inter-species sex, while roughly 1% of those encouters resulting in fertile offspring.......that should have had some influence on human evolution. Do you really think a caveman had a strict code of morality?l

[Sticks]

Originally posted by Lauren

What about when moths changed their colours after the industrial era? When they became darker to mesh with the dark tree's to hide from predators. Was this caused by a mutation?

This is of course the Peppered Moth and the wikipedia article goes into this in more depths, but in summary

There are white moths and dark moths and in between moths. All that changed was the ratios between the populations. There was no mutation what so ever and yet it is still used as an example of Evolution, when it is nothing of the sort.

[Lauren]

Originally posted by Sticks

This is of course the Peppered Moth and the wikipedia article goes into this in more depths, but in summary

There are white moths and dark moths and in between moths. All that changed was the ratios between the populations. There was no mutation what so ever and yet it is still used as an example of Evolution, when it is nothing of the sort.

Ok, fair enough. Thanks for the links, just wanted to clear this up.
(Although in theory that then means it's evidence for survival of the fittest, also outlined in Darwin's Evolutionary Theory).

And are we including survival of the sexiest in this? Because mutations have occurred (As far as I know) that is good evidence towards survival of the sexiest (E.g. Peacocks tail, although a hinderer in survival of fittest)

[Sticks]

Survival of the fittest is somewhat circular in reasoning.

It is not survival of the strongest, but of those creatures that fit most into their environment and can go on to pass their genes on in reproducing. We then define a creature as fittest if it has been able to reproduce.

[Bells]

Hundreds and thousands of years ago, yes brothers and sisters did in some cases get married and have relationships. I'm surprised people didn't know that - it was acceptable back then and of course in some cases considered more respectable because you were keeping genes within your own family. Of course, when I say this was a long time ago, I do mean a long time ago so it wouldn't affect the extent of the family tree people nowadays tend to have - it'd have been much longer before then!

As for why people have different coloured skin...different parts of the world have different climates and sun intensities. After a certain civilisation lives in a part of a world where it's sunny constantly, their skin would as a result turn darker. And then these genes would pass on to children, because the people who would survive to the age to have children would be the ones who have darker skin since they are coping better in the weather conditions as opposed to developing skin problems, perhaps cancers etc. We studied this in Biology last year, also looking at other similar principles e.g. fur colour on animals. So really, we're all the same but as different colonies have moved to different parts of the world, they in turn formed adaptations to suit where they lived. It's not like a random Chinese person appeared in China and so on - at least that's not what we're led to believe; it's a gradual thing in terms of human characteristics, and it makes a lot more sense that way!

[The_Hitman]

Originally posted by Sticks
Survival of the fittest is somewhat circular in reasoning.

It is not survival of the strongest, but of those creatures that fit most into their environment and can go on to pass their genes on in reproducing. We then define a creature as fittest if it has been able to reproduce.

Sticks do you... Admin deleted: doesn't add anything to the debate.

[James]

Originally posted by Sticks
in the short, few thousand year or so history of the Earth?

The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Scientists have estimated that from measuring the radioactive half-life of minerals and astronomical evidence.

If you accept that it seems logical to me that evolution is right - I mean you wouldn't expect everything to stay the same over hundreds of millions of years.

[Sticks]

Oops, didn't see that when copying and pasting. When I saw that original presentation in Scotland, the preface about that grid was that the argument held if you believed in Adam and Eve or Mr and Mrs Austrolopithicus.

Anyhue wrt dating using radiometric rock methods, how it works and how they have to make a number of assumptions.

If you get radioactive isotope, it is constantly decaying from the parent element to another element or isotope, called the daughter element. Over a certain time, half of the parent element decays into daughter element plus otherdecay products. This is called the half life, and with each halflife, the amount of parent element is halved.

These decay rates are worked out in the laboratory. So what you do is get your rock in which the fossil is found, (note you can not date the exact fossil only the rock in which it is found), and you work out the ratios of parent element to daughter element and using horrendous math you get a date.

So what are these assumptions

1) The clock hands must be set to zero at the start.
Hang on how do we know that there was not daughter elements already presnt at time = zero - sorry!

2) The clock must be a closed system
But what about the possibility of water leaching things in or out, what about parent or daughter elements migrating as it is known that they can - What if the fossil it self has migrated - sorry!

3) the Rate of the clock (The half life) is constant

Evolutionist Frederic B. Jueneman wrote:
The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5
billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and
thorium. Such “confirmation” may be short-lived, as nature
is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been
in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates
are not as constant as previously thought, nor are theyimmune
to environmental influences.
And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during
some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic
to a closemaynot be 65 million years ago but, rather,
within the age and memory of man .
Jueneman, Frederic B. (1982), Industrial Research and Development, June, p. 21.

This is treated here more fully


Back in the 1980's there was an erruption at Mount St Helen's. Ten years after those new rocks were formed in that erruption, they were giving dates as if they were thousands of years old.

Radio metric Rock dating has been shown to be unreliable and prone to giving false dates

This article contains other methods for dating a Young Earth

[ThaGazBoi]

I dont believe in God, however, I do think there is something out there.

[ttw]

ooh, I got a good little debate going with the adam and eve thing lol.

No one has answered my other question tho!

Why didn't the lions eat the zebras in noah's ark?????

[Slartibartfast]

LOL, I'll answer your question with another question to you (bad etiquette in debates, I know!!)

What don't all the lions at the zoo eat the zebras?

[James]

Originally posted by Sticks

This is treated here more fully

This article contains other methods for dating a Young Earth

I don't think those are credible sources - I checked the author of the second article's credentials and his PhD was in hydraulics, not anything to do with the subject.

The first article is from a religious website and the author appears not to even hold a science degree. The article seems to be made up of bits and pieces of stuff that could probably be taken apart quite easily by anyone who knows the subject.

Now when I was at university I was taught to always cite reliable sources - primary research.

Originally posted by ttw
Why didn't the lions eat the zebras in noah's ark?????

Here's another question about Noah's Ark. How big must the Ark have been to hold an example of every lifeform on the planet?

There are millions of different species on the Earth. It would have needed laboratories to hold all the single-celled organisms and fungi and stuff like that.

[ttw]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
LOL, I'll answer your question with another question to you (bad etiquette in debates, I know!!)

What don't all the lions at the zoo eat the zebras?

Err, because they don't just run wild do they, otherwise I am sure they would.

[The_Hitman]

Originally posted by ttw
ooh, I got a good little debate going with the adam and eve thing lol.

No one has answered my other question tho!

Why didn't the lions eat the zebras in noah's ark?????

Was it because the parrots eat em all?

[ttw]

Another thing, the whole point of the flood was to get rid of all the wicked people living on earth...

If god is so powerful, why make noah go to all that trouble, why not just make all wicked people drop down dead or each one get zapped by lightning, the flood just seems abit extra... seeing as it would have ruined houses and nature (like trees and stuff)

[ttw]

Originally posted by The_Hitman

Was it because the parrots eat em all?

lol.

did they?

[Sticks]

This related article is from someone I have met, and who was a food Microbiologist and therefore was a practising scientist.

The ealier article did give references which could be checked, so why is it less reliable?

Wrt the ark, if you measure it out, it was quite huge, and its ratios off HxLxW are the perfect ratios for a boat built for sea worthyness. These ratios were borrowed in WWII for an American supply ship nicknamed the "Ugly Duckling". The question is, how did the writer know these ratios?

Any hue, who said the animals in the ark had to be fully grown adults?

[ttw]

Originally posted by Sticks


Any hue, who said the animals in the ark had to be fully grown adults?

They still need to eat.

[Sticks]

But how many two year old todlers can wolf down a massive fry up cooked for a 15 stone he-man?

Plus I did mention that meat eating may have come in after the flood, given Genesis 9:3

[ttw]

Originally posted by Sticks
But how many two year old todlers can wolf down a massive fry up cooked for a 15 stone he-man?

Plus I did mention that meat eating may have come in after the flood, given Genesis 9:3

So before the flood lions ate plants??

Okay, so did they eat the mouses or rabbits then?

[Slartibartfast]

Originally posted by ttw

Err, because they don't just run wild do they, otherwise I am sure they would.

You've answered your own question there! The animals didn't just run wild on the ark either. (Genesis 6:14, the animals had different rooms/cubicles to live in)

Take a look at this for more info on the detail of the ark:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2655

[ttw]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast

You've answered your own question there! The animals didn't just run wild on the ark either. (Genesis 6:14, the animals had different rooms/cubicles to live in)

Take a look at this for more info on the detail of the ark:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2655

Thanks!!!