What makes a creationist a creationist?

Darkness27 · #**161** 10th September 2009, 04:38 AM

Originally Posted by marktheblake

Unique characteristics of ethnic groups become apparent after they have become isolated. The narrower gene pool results in less variation.

So did Adam and Eve had all the different alleles we see today among the human populations?

Aborigines have been very isolated perhaps more so than any other group, and according to MtDNA research indicates that they are the first branch from the earliest groups, and no other group has descended from them.

We have skulls from Cro-Magnons in Europe that are similar to Aboriginies (Thicker bones, thicker brow ridges, larger teeth ect.). Obviously we don't see this in modern European populations, so how would you explain this?

no, never seen a human mutate into another creature, except in the movies.

Mutations do happen, most mutations don't result into new species, but that doesn't mean they aren't mutations. How do you think they researched the mtDNA and came to a conclusion?

marktheblake · #**162** 10th September 2009, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Darkness27

So did Adam and Eve had all the different alleles we see today among the human populations?

Like what? is darker or lighter skin a mutation?

Dont forget that from the position I stand on, is that technically the original humans we are all descended from are Noahs three sons and their wives. As the root of this discussion was how we explain the racial diferences today, obviously Noahs family not Adam is the starting point for this diversity to a degree. Obviously each wife may well have had very different characteristics to each other and their husbands.

Obviously we don't see this in modern European populations, so how would you explain this?

the Cro magnons didnt make it onto the boat.

How do you think they researched the mtDNA and came to a conclusion?

Mutations is a very broad word. I do not beleive a mutation can occur that causes a cat to change into a dog, whether that be over time or whatever is that fancy word the evolutionists uses now to explain rapid change.

Obviously the markers identified in the MtDNA findings are mutations. As far as I am aware though, they are markers, and not relevant to any known characteristic such as we are discussing.

metherion · #**163** 10th September 2009, 02:15 PM

Like what? is darker or lighter skin a mutation?

If the parents don’t have it, generally yes.

Dont forget that from the position I stand on, is that technically the original humans we are all descended from are Noahs three sons and their wives. As the root of this discussion was how we explain the racial diferences today, obviously Noahs family not Adam is the starting point for this diversity to a degree. Obviously each wife may well have had very different characteristics to each other and their husbands.

Except that unless you are adding to Scripture, all humanity descended from Adam and Eve, so Noah, his sons, and their wives all came from Adam and Eve. So Adam and Eve WOULD be the starting point for any diversity.

Mutations is a very broad word. I do not beleive a mutation can occur that causes a cat to change into a dog,

Well, good. Because nothing can cause a cat to change into a dog, that would immediately falsify evolution. BAM. DONE.

whether that be over time or whatever is that fancy word the evolutionists uses now to explain rapid change.

Nope, a modern day cat will never change into a modern day dog.

Obviously the markers identified in the MtDNA findings are mutations. As far as I am aware though, they are markers, and not relevant to any known characteristic such as we are discussing.

Except, you know, tracking how many similarities various people have to figure out how far back they are related.
 Metherion

Darkness27 · #**164** 11th September 2009, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by marktheblake

Like what? is darker or lighter skin a mutation?

That would indeed be one, no way two people could have all the alleles associated with pigmentation of skin.

Dont forget that from the position I stand on, is that technically the original humans we are all descended from are Noahs three sons and their wives. As the root of this discussion was how we explain the racial diferences today, obviously Noahs family not Adam is the starting point for this diversity to a degree. Obviously each wife may well have had very different characteristics to each other and their husbands.

However Noah and all his family ultimately descended from Adam and Eve, so the starting point for diversity must be Adam and Eve.

the Cro magnons didnt make it onto the boat.

What about Neanderthals? Or H. Erectus, H. Ergaster, H. Habilis. That is a lot of diversity from one couple without any mutations along the way.

Mutations is a very broad word. I do not beleive a mutation can occur that causes a cat to change into a dog, whether that be over time or whatever is that fancy word the evolutionists uses now to explain rapid change.

What do you mean by "mutations is a very broad word"? A mutation is a change in the DNA molecule usually occurring during meiosis. While there are a lot of different types of mutations, and they vary drastically in what they do. Like some mutations literally don't change anything, because you can have two codons code for the same chemical. Or a single mutation can be lethal, like a mutation in the Hox gene area wouldn't be too good for survival, or a mutation could make it so your body doesn't produce a critical enzyme and you would die in a week after birth. And some mutations can increase survival, like increased hemoglobin and red blood cells in high altitude climates. Or increased lactase for life, which most of European decent have.

Metherion is right, a modern cat will never change into a modern dog and vice versa.

Obviously the markers identified in the MtDNA findings are mutations. As far as I am aware though, they are markers, and not relevant to any known characteristic such as we are discussing.

As Metherion said, we can use these mutations to determine how closely related organisms are, and put a time period on it as well.

marktheblake · #**165** 11th September 2009, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Darkness27

That would indeed be one, no way two people could have all the alleles associated with pigmentation of skin.

Hypothtical: Adam and Eve who are both of brown skin colour. has 4 kids, John and Jane have darker skin than mum and dad, Mike and Michelle have fairer skin than mum and dad.

So the J's and the M's pair off with each other, what skin tones will the kids of each pair be more likely to have?

What about Neanderthals? Or H. Erectus, H. Ergaster, H. Habilis. That is a lot of diversity from one couple without any mutations along the way.

The "mighty men of renown" never made it onto the boat. I side with the school of thought that they were not entirely human which has good scriptural support. That also fits in nicely with what you are saying here.

What do you mean by "mutations is a very broad word"?

Same as Evolution is.

You are diverting me quite a long way from the original topic, which is how to explain all the diverse 'races' in the world, and I have explained this. It only takes a few generations combined with isolation of a small group to have a new 'race'

The thing is, biologically, what is really the difference between the 'races', for the most part it is the amount of melanin their skin produces.

rcorlew · #**166** 11th September 2009, 02:47 PM

I thought this would be an interesting addition to the discussion as far as skin pigmentation goes. The human genome has 16 different possible chromosomes that control skin color, which is the same with hair color and eye color. At the Tower of Babel when God confused the languages He could have made it so that people with different DNA characteristics would be paired together to produce any possible number of results. This argument would all be folly without the following picture which is not a hoax, it is the real deal. Identical twin sisters born to two black parents, identical in every way except for the obvious.

That my friends is not a mutation, it is a product of genetic diversity.

Note however that the white girl did not come out with anything else different, just skin and hair color; no extra arms, tails anything else.

Two human parents will have a human kid, two dog parents will have a dog. We can force speciation to happen by introducing a new creature into an environment, but that does not prove that it has happened before. A mouse may change characteristics but it will always remain a mouse (down the genetic line of parenting of generations) and not turn into a rabbit.

My friends i give you two animals, the mule and the liger, both are different animals than either parent yet sterile and unable to reproduce.

SixStringPlank · #**167** 12th September 2009, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by marktheblake

The thing is, biologically, what is really the difference between the 'races', for the most part it is the amount of melanin their skin produces.

Yeah, this is basically true. What we call race is really a cultural, economic and political construct. Studies that have looked at the genetic variation among humans show that there is more variation within populations and there is between populations.