Originally posted by tericl2
Cheating? Were you ever really looking for answers? Seems like you have your mind made up already, so why couch your opinion by beginning this thread with a question? As if you were actually seeking some type of answer?
I was asking if anyone had a plausible theory. That site's theory is not "plausible". It's *LAUGHABLE*.
As for the two gene deal...the article clearly stated that was for clarity of the example. I think if you will do just a tiny bit of research you will find that many scientific examples of processes start with a very similar statement. Especially when written to be understood by the general layperson. When you factor in an increase in genes it makes the model even more plausible.
No, not when you have more complicated types of genes. Not all genes are as simple as the ones they describe.
I still don't see that you read what I posted even. Much less the whole article at CA.
I read it. It was what I would have written after my first intro to genetics, if I'd been trying to make that point. The flaws in it are many and varied. To make a long story short, there's no way to have a "stable" population of people of the sort you'd need, if indeed you could even *make* such a population. And yet, everyone was the same and there's no mention of wildly differing appearances, and then there's Babel... and about twenty five years later, we're expected to believe that the entire world, including the parts you can't reach, are populated with wildly different racial groups with substantially different qualities and ten thousand years worth of genetic drift.
Oh, forget it. I don't feel like posting all this again. The explanation is there in what I have already posted and the accompanying link. Every so-called conflict you have with it was answered in that article.
No, it wasn't. They hand-waved, and they are either ignorant or lying, but they didn't come *CLOSE* to addressing the issue. Basically, they invented a straw man and showed that they could *MOSTLY* address that. If the only problems we had were light and dark skins, it would be dimly possible.
What they can't explain is the kind of subtle and gradual differentiation you see among the world's *MANY* ethnic groups, most of which are not simply questions of "light or dark". They don't explain how the Han Chinese came to be a racial group with clear standards of purity in a somewhat *negative* amount of time, according to the chronology.
Hmm. How many of the clean animals did Noah take? Gen 7:2 says 7 male, 7 female. Gen 6:19-20 says 2 of everything. He's supposed to have fed them for 5 months with the food supply in the ark. The ark is only 450'x75'x30'; that's not even enough to hold a breeding pair of every species of insect. Thus... Either new species have evolved in the last 4-5 thousand years, or they didn't really all fit on the ark. You can't even do two of every land mammal in that much space.
We have Noah and his wife, and their six kids, and that's the whole population. Three of those kids are contributing *NOTHING* genetically - they're just using part of Noah's genetic material, and part of his wife's, so at *MOST* we have five people. From these five people, we need a dozen ethnic groups - none of which is a "combination" of others. Asian and American Indian are both simply distinct groups; they aren't "half-black" or any such. The usual Spanish coloring is probably an ethnic group for genetic purposes. Turks, Hindus, Eskimos, two types of Asians, Mongols, Australians, Aztecs... Each of these groups *CANNOT* be reproduced by blending the others.
The arguments presented simply do not take into account even the most basic understanding of genetic traits. If you can find better arguments, I'm willing to look at them, but the conclusion is sufficiently inconsistent as to suggest, once again, that we are dealing with a *MYTH*, not an actual literal story.
Rule 1: The Bible is about morality, and God. Everything else is storytelling.