Frances Collins concept of God

[joshua 1 9]

Good grief, you posted that "70 percent of Europeans suffer from low vitamin D levels, experts say" not Loudmouth

Because he tried to claim just the opposite. The facts simply do not back his claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

The people that actually live in the arctic circle are what we call Eskimos and they are far from the white people you talk about.

They are far from the people with African descent that we are talking about.

This is simply one more of your myths that lacks any scientific evidence to substantiate your beliefs or claims.

I already gave the scientific papers that back it up.

Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2009 Feb;5(2):99-105. doi: 10.1038/ncprheum0989.

The effect of melanism and vitamin D synthesis on the incidence of autoimmune
disease.

Shoenfeld N(1), Amital H, Shoenfeld Y.

Author information:
(1)Be'er Ya'akov Mental Health Center, Be'er Ya'akov, Israel.

Melanin has several physiological roles in maintaining health, but, notably, it
affects the synthesis of vitamin D. Melanin is the primary determinant of the
degree of skin pigmentation and protects the body from harmful ultraviolet
radiation. Synthesis of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(3) (1,25[OH](2)D(3)) in the skin,
however, is dependent on ultraviolet B light. Highly pigmented skin, to the level
found in people of African origin, abrogates almost all ultraviolet-induced
1,25(OH)(2)D(3) synthesis. Numerous animal models and clinical studies have
underlined the essential role of vitamin D as a modulator of the different
processes of the immune system. Evidence indicates that serum concentrations of
1,25(OH)(2)D(3) and the prevalence of autoimmune diseases in a certain population
are associated with the latitude at which that population resides. This article
explores the relationship between skin pigmentation, vitamin D and the prevalence
of autoimmune disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19182816
​

 

[Loudmouth]

Your theory is racist because you claim that white skin is superior and you fail to produce any scientific evidence to substantiate your claim so you are doing little more then propitiating myths.

I have never said that people with white skin are more superior humans or have more human worth than blacks. I am simply stating facts. It is no more racist than pointing out the advantages of the sickle cell trait in certain environments.

No one has any objection to micro evolution. Your white skin myth does nothing to substantiate macro evolution.

You ignore all of the evidence supporting macroevolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because he tried to claim just the opposite. The facts simply do not back his claim.

I have given you the facts, and you ignore them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because he tried to claim just the opposite. The facts simply do not back his claim.

You incorrectly interpreted your data, yes 70% of Europeans probably have a vitamin D deficit. That is why getting as much production of vitamin D out of your skin is even more important. Since melanin impairs vitamin D production, check out Loudmouth's sources, dark skinned people would have an even higher deficit. Having light skin in the tropics is not a plus since even dark skinned individuals make more than enough vitamin D there. In that case the increased risk of skin cancer from the Sun gives darker people a slight edge.

Creationists keep demanding examples of positive and negative mutations and when given them they ignore them. Or misinterpret them. Anything to keep their incorrect beliefs alive.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You incorrectly interpreted your data, yes 70% of Europeans probably have a vitamin D deficit. That is why getting as much production of vitamin D out of your skin is even more important. Since melanin impairs vitamin D production, check out Loudmouth's sources, dark skinned people would have an even higher deficit. Having light skin in the tropics is not a plus since even dark skinned individuals make more than enough vitamin D there. In that case the increased risk of skin cancer from the Sun gives darker people a slight edge.

Creationists keep demanding examples of positive and negative mutations and when given them they ignore them. Or misinterpret them. Anything to keep their incorrect beliefs alive.

I know. Forbid a trait that would be advantageous in a desert environment would be detrimental in a tropical forest environment. The fact of the matter is, it's pretty much unheard of for a trait to be advantageous in all livable environments on the planet. Even water bears, which can handle a lot of crazy environments in their "stasis" state will not be able to resume normal living activities within those environments, and are too small to try to migrate to better ones.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know. Forbid a trait that would be advantageous in a desert environment would be detrimental in a tropical forest environment. The fact of the matter is, it's pretty much unheard of for a trait to be advantageous in all livable environments on the planet. Even water bears, which can handle a lot of crazy environments in their "stasis" state will not be able to resume normal living activities within those environments, and are too small to try to migrate to better ones.

I have often made a very similar claim. Whether a mutation is positive or negative very often depends upon the environment that it is found in.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have often made a very similar claim. Whether a mutation is positive or negative very often depends upon the environment that it is found in.

Also, reproduction advantages often trump survival ones, hence why male birds often have bright plumage that surely gets the attention of more than just females of the species. It's give and take, nothing is perfect nor will anything ever be.

 

[FredVB]

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence...r-variation/modern-human-diversity-skin-color

This paragraph sums it up better than I could, and it addresses your Eskimo question....

Melanin, the skin's brown pigment, is a natural sunscreen that protects tropical peoples from the many harmful effects of ultraviolet (UV) rays. UV rays can, for example, strip away folic acid, a nutrient essential to the development of healthy fetuses. Yet when a certain amount of UV rays penetrates the skin, it helps the human body use vitamin D to absorb the calcium necessary for strong bones. This delicate balancing act explains why the peoples that migrated to colder geographic zones with less sunlight developed lighter skin color. As people moved to areas farther from the equator with lower UV levels, natural selection favored lighter skin which allowed UV rays to penetrate and produce essential vitamin D. The darker skin of peoples who lived closer to the equator was important in preventing folate deficiency. Measures of skin reflectance, a way to quantify skin color by measuring the amount of light it reflects, in people around the world support this idea. While UV rays can cause skin cancer, because skin cancer usually affects people after they have had children, it likely had little effect on the evolution of skin color because evolution favors changes that improve reproductive success.

There is also a third factor which affects skin color: coastal peoples who eat diets rich in seafood enjoy this alternate source of vitamin D. That means that some Arctic peoples, such as native peoples of Alaska and Canada, can afford to remain dark-skinned even in low UV areas. In the summer they get high levels of UV rays reflected from the surface of snow and ice, and their dark skin protects them from this reflected light.

The point is that different skin colours provide advantages in different environments, that's it.

http://news.psu.edu/story/299166/20...-gene-across-global-populations-reveal-shared

Sodium/potassium/calcium exchanger 5 - Wikipedia

While the genetics of skin color is largely unclear, past research using zebrafish by the College of Medicine’s Keith Cheng identified a key gene that contributes to lighter skin color in Europeans and differs from West Africans. In 2005, Cheng reported that one amino acid difference in the gene SLC24A5 is a key contributor to the skin color difference between Europeans and West Africans.

“The mutation in SLC24A5 changes just one building block in the protein, and contributes about a third of the visually striking differences in skin tone between peoples of African and European ancestry,” said Cheng, Distinguished Professor of Pathology. Lighter skin color may have provided an advantage due to for the better creation of vitamin D in the lesser sunlight characteristic of northern latitudes.

In this current part of the project, Victor Canfield, assistant professor of pharmacology, together with Cheng, studied DNA sequence differences across the globe. They studied segments of genetic code that have a mutation and are located closely on the same chromosome and are often inherited together. This specific mutation in SLC24A5, called A111T, is found in virtually everyone of European ancestry.

Humans are really adaptable to different climates and environments, and there is abundant genetic variation that helps with human populations coming to that adaptability. This is interesting how there is all this explained, even with some mutation being in explanations. On the other hand, it does nothing to dismiss the perspective of others of us that God is good.

 

[DiscipleOfChrist85]

Evolution is NOT a random process. Mutations are random (although, we are able to calculate the rate of mutation for various species, so it could be argued that it's not entirely random). However, the 'back end' of evolution is the process of natural selection and that is anything but random in nature. Imagine tomatoes on a conveyor belt, awaiting bottling. The sizes of the tomatoes is largely a random function, but the holes through which the tomatoes of the right size must drop is not. Natural selection is the equivalent of those size holes.



Utter rubbish. "Science" says no such thing. Wishful creationists say those things.



More drivel.



But, as has been repeated endlessly, it doesn't affect his acceptance of the theory.

Never thought of it like that but that makes sense.

 

[FredVB]

A conveyor belt with holes for items like tomatoes to drop through would just be analogous to selective pressure being conservative, keeping the population within bounds and eliminating the most aberrant.

 

[sfs]

A conveyor belt with holes for items like tomatoes to drop through would just be analogous to selective pressure being conservative, keeping the population within bounds and eliminating the most aberrant.

Depends on the size of the holes. If the holes are smaller than the mean size of existing tomatoes, then it's analogous to selective pressure for smaller tomatoes.

 

[FredVB]

Depends on the size of the holes. If the holes are smaller than the mean size of existing tomatoes, then it's analogous to selective pressure for smaller tomatoes.

So the analogy would come a little short. There would be aberrant holes forming. The actual case if there was linear correspondence would make sense, aberrant mutants and an environment forming that suits them. But it is not linear correspondence, aberration through mutation randomly would go in any direction, and an environment being in place then to preferentially favor those over any others is not at all likely, and most mutations are not even that good for being favored by any environment.

 

[Estrid]

The people that actually live in the arctic circle are what we call Eskimos and they are far from the white people you talk about. This is simply one more of your myths that lacks any scientific evidence to substantiate your beliefs or claims.

Like Scandanavians haven't been living in the Arctic for thousands of years.

 

[FredVB]

The actual case if there was linear correspondence would make sense, aberrant mutants and an environment forming that suits them. But it is not linear correspondence, aberration through mutation randomly would go in any direction, and an environment being in place then to preferentially favor those over any others is not at all likely, and most mutations are not even that good for being favored by any environment.

With it being without linear correspondence, environments may change as they do, but species having mutant offspring among them are very unlikely to have those the changed environments favor over all the rest. It is far more likely if the environment changes so much for unfavored species with more disadvantage to go extinct.

 

[FredVB]

I would take issue with his statement that God is outside of nature. Maybe what Collins is referring to is that on a Quantum level there are different laws at work.

God is outside of nature. That is, conditional existence which includes the physical existence of the universe is limited to its defined dimensions, not extending into other dimensions. But necessary existence which started all caused existence which came into being is not limited, being necessary in existence, not then having interruptions or limits, is in all dimensions that there are, and so not physical, that would have the necessary existence not subject to direct observation or tests, but would be known from evidence of what is observed to exist having been brought into existence with arranged order having set parameters.

 

[sfs]

With it being without linear correspondence

I don't know what you mean by 'linear correspondence'. Correspondence between what and what?

species having mutant offspring among them are very unlikely to have those the changed environments favor over all the rest.

That's not correct. Sure, most mutations will have either no effect or be detrimental, but the probability that some of the enormous number of mutations that occur in a species every generation will be helpful in the new environment is high. You can see this routinely in the lab. Take a sample of bacteria, say, or malaria parasites (in my line of work) and expose them to a new environment, e.g. one with an effective drug in it. Most of the time the relatively small population you've exposed to the new environment evolves to adapt to the change, which only occurs because of beneficial mutations.

 

[FredVB]

I don't know what you mean by 'linear correspondence'. Correspondence between what and what?

You missed the most important part. Think of linear correspondence as points in one line have correspondence to points on another line. Then consider another case, the infinity of possible curves. That cannot have one to one correspondence with points on a line. The possible mutations do not match the possible environmental circumstances that change can bring, there would be widely different circumstances possible, and it is not likely mutations that would be favored under a certain change of circumstances match that. It would be very unlikely.

Sure, most mutations will have either no effect or be detrimental, but the probability that some of the enormous number of mutations that occur in a species every generation will be helpful in the new environment is high. You can see this routinely in the lab. Take a sample of bacteria, say, or malaria parasites (in my line of work) and expose them to a new environment, e.g. one with an effective drug in it. Most of the time the relatively small population you've exposed to the new environment evolves to adapt to the change, which only occurs because of beneficial mutations.

That case is not with a great variation of possible environments available, hardly representative for those with great variation possible. That it is possible is an evolutionist perspective, it is not mathematically supported. With number of mutations enormous enough in a species for the match the species would have serious decline with those harmful mutations.

 

[sfs]

The possible mutations do not match the possible environmental circumstances that change can bring, there would be widely different circumstances possible, and it is not likely mutations that would be favored under a certain change of circumstances match that. It would be very unlikely.

Mutations don't have to match all of the possible changes to the environment. They only have to match the ones that actually occur. Could you be more concrete? What kind of environmental change are you thinking of that would require a prohibitive number of mutations for adaptation to occur?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The people that actually live in the arctic circle are what we call Eskimos and they are far from the white people you talk about. This is simply one more of your myths that lacks any scientific evidence to substantiate your beliefs or claims.

Skin darkness is correlated with local UV exposure in populations that have lived in the same locale for a long time (recent migrants haven't adapted yet).

One driver of UV exposure is latitude, more at the equator, less at the pole. Another is reflection -- water and especially snow and ice reflect light strongly including UV. Finally there is altitude where less UV is absorbed by the atmosphere. (Think Tibet or Peru where the locals have darker skin than their low altitude neighbors. The same populations have also evolved better oxygen carrying capacity to compensate for the lower oxygen levels at altitude.)

The Arctic peoples of North America live in snowy environments, but also their traditional diets of fatty sea life provides abundant vitamin D and this drastically lowers any pressure to evolve lighter skin.