So it is a biblical term others use!
No. Not in the Bible.
Well the kind is miyn! He created is bara. so Baramin is He created kinds. and yes it is grammatical hebrew!
No. Properly used, it would be "min baru."
Barbarian demonstrates a number of favorable mutations.
And I debunked them as vague untested
No, that's wrong. All of these have been extensively tested. I showed you research papers. Would you like to see some more?
These things exist in the real world. but they are far from saying they are unplanned undirected mutations that HAPPENED RANDOMLY!
Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels for demonstrating that mutations occur randomly. So that's not an issue.
Isn't it amazing! I looked it up in a 11 volume Hebrew commentary of the OT from the mid 19th century and they have that word being used by ancient rabbis!
That would indeed be modern, but less modern than mid-20th century. Still not Biblical or orthodoxy.
There is some uncertainty about what exactly the Bible means when it talks of "kinds." Creationist Brian Nelson claimed "While the Bible allows that new varieties may have arisen since the creative days, it denies that any new species have arisen." However, Russell Mixter, another creationist writer, said that "One should not insist that "kind" means species. The word "kind" as used in the Bible may apply to any animal which may be distinguished in any way from another, or it may be applied to a large group of species distinguishable from another group ... there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on what are the kinds of Genesis.
If you wish to play this deceptive little game- then I will quote evolutionist Ernst Haeckl !
By all means, do so. There's a hidden lesson therein for you. Tell us about Haeckl.
Really quoting things from 60 and 70 years ago is truly dishonest.
I've never thought of truth become falsehood after a few decades. How do you think that works?
Barbarian observes:
As I pointed out to you several times, there are many decent and honest YECs, some of whom, like Wise and Harold Coffin, who will freely admit the evidence indicates common descent and/or great age for the Earth.
Once again I call into question your integrity in a debate! Wise never believed in old ages
Didn't say he did. Coffin, for example, is a YEC, and he testified that if it weren't for his reading of scripture, the evidence would convince him that the Earth was very old. Likewise, Kurt Wise merely says that the large number of series of transitional forms is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory. He doesn't say he believes it's true; he merely notes that it's very good evidence.
He freely admits that no amount of evidence would shake his faith in a young Earth.
Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.
you cannot be a YEC and believe in long ages.
No one said you could. That's a statement you made up and pretended I said. Integrity fail one!
Mixter is a progressive creationst- you know that is not a YEC but a belief in evolution with God directing it!
I said (Mixter?) was a YEC? (Barbarian checks) Can't find that. Could you avoid integrity fail 2 by showing me where I did.
Well show us the mutation form the denesovans!
The team also compared the full EPAS1 gene between populations around the world and confirmed that the Tibetans’ inherited the entire gene from Denisovans in the past 40,000 years or so—or from an even earlier ancestor that carried that DNA and passed it on to both Denisovans and modern humans. But they ruled out the second scenario—that the gene was inherited from the last ancestor that modern humans shared with Denisovans more than 400,000 years ago because such a large gene, or segment of DNA, would have accumulated mutations and broken up over that much time—and the Tibetans’ and Denisovans’ versions of the gene wouldn’t match as closely as they do today.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/tibetans-inherited-high-altitude-gene-ancient-human
People in higher altitudes adapt to thinner altitudes!
All humans can do that by making more RBCs. But that causes health problems, particularly with childbearing. The EPAS1 allele doesn't work like that. People with that allele don't have to make so many RBCs.
You have yet to show this is not natural built in variation within mankind!
The allele was present in Denesovans, and now is limited mostly to Tibetans, with some in nearby Han Chinese. I would expect it to be found in small percentages in southeast Asians and Polynesians. (Barbarian checks)
I don't see that anyone has checked. But since those populations were also partially descended from Denesovans, I'll bet that allele has some frequency in SE Asia and Polynesia.
that is also why many African marathon runners do very well! They live and train in higher climes with thinner atmospheres so when they rin say a Boston Marathin they can endure faster speeds longer because their bodies are receiving much more oxygen! that was medically proved long ago! No mutation just normal adaptation!
Kenyan runners would be ill on the Tibetan plateau. You can only cram so many RBCs into a liter of blood. As you just learned, the EPAS1 allele handles it differently.
Hematology. 2018 Jun;23(5):309-313. doi: 10.1080/10245332.2017.1396046. Epub 2017 Nov 12.
Investigation of the differences between the Tibetan and Han populations in the hemoglobin-oxygen affinity of red blood cells and in the adaptation to high-altitude environments.
RESULTS:
The Han population that rapidly entered the plateau had increasing higher P50 values, RBCs counts and hemoglobin (HGB) levels, while the acclimatized Han population, the plateau Han population and Tibetan all had significantly lower P50 values. However, there were no significant differences in the RBCs counts and HGB levels between the plateau Han, Tibetan populations and the Han population of the plains.
DISCUSSION:
The adaptability of the Tibetan and plateau Han populations to the plateau was mainly due to the strong affinity of HGB for oxygen, which provided sufficient oxygen for tissues and organs.
CONCLUSIONS:
The change of P50 could be a feature of the adaptation to the plateau and to avoid altitude sickness, such as high-altitude polycythemia and dyspnea.
Are you sure you were a biologist?
Two major universities and a series of employers thought so...
Most mutations decrease iniformation in teh genome!
No, that's wrong. All new mutations add information. Because you don't know what "information" is, or even how to calculate it, you've misunderstood how information changes in a population.
And I also can't believe that you would defend sickle cell anemia as positive!
As you learned, being a heterozygote for HbS is a great advantage in areas where malaria is endemic. It means that you won't be crippled or killed by the disease, while most of your unprotected fellows will. The downside is a child of two heterozygotes has a one in four chance of getting two HbS alleles,which causes sickle cell disease and usually early death.
On the other hand, such a child has a 50 percent likelihood of being a heterozygote, and thereby avoiding both malaria and sickle cell disease. And of course, he has a 25 percent likelihood of being a homozygote for normal Hb, meaning likely disability or death from malaria.
Since the offspring of two homozygotes for normal Hb are likely to become infected with malaria and become disabled or killed by the disease, the offspring of two heterozygotes are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce, and so the mutation will increase in the population.
However, as you learned, the first adaptation to environments is often not optimal. Which is why HbC is replacing HbS in malaria areas. HbC provides protection but rarely causes severe health problems. It's a more favorable mutation, since homozygotes for HbC don't end up crippled or dead.
While it may grant an immunity to malaria- it is a negative mutation and reduced the viability of the hosts!
See above. Careful reading would have spared you this embarrassment.