• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] Rapid evolution of human races after the Great Flood

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deep Thought
  • Start date Start date
Hundreds of human fossils have been found in the strata that are attributed by conventional geology to be less than 5 million years old, the majority of them less than 2 million years old. Isn't that surprising?

Statistically a whole bunch of them should have been found in other strata, shouldn't they? After all, we find plenty of other fossils there as well.

And shouldn't at least, say, 10% of the dinosaurs have made it into upper strata?
 
Anyway, getting back on topic, apart from an unfounded claim that Noah had a larger gene pool that magically spawned all the diversity in the human races, is there any other theory?
 
jwu said:
Hundreds of human fossils have been found in the strata that are attributed by conventional geology to be less than 5 million years old, the majority of them less than 2 million years old. Isn't that surprising?

Statistically a whole bunch of them should have been found in other strata, shouldn't they? After all, we find plenty of other fossils there as well.

And shouldn't at least, say, 10% of the dinosaurs have made it into upper strata?

I don't trust dating methods so the whole dating thing fails to me.

there was a human skeleton in supposed Precambrian rock, but it was said to be a fake, if all humans were concentrated in a small area then they should only have been found i that certain area, with minor exceptions, dead bodies floating, hydro sorting, the separation of the continents etc etc

the geological column is not set, its scrambled every ware, dinos can be found in almost any layer, but yes they tend to be in lower layers, my guess is be cause they are bigger and heavier.

Since this thread has been hijacked majorly, lol Were did all the sediment come from and why are they different color bands?
 
Deep Thought said:
Anyway, getting back on topic, apart from an unfounded claim that Noah had a larger gene pool that magically spawned all the diversity in the human races, is there any other theory?

Yes, back on track, Noah did not have a "Magic" gene pool just deeper, its not complicated.
 
How did Noah have this huge gene pool? Where is the evidence? What scientific basis is there?
 
Deep Thought said:
How did Noah have this huge gene pool? Where is the evidence? What scientific basis is there?

Evidence? i say look around you but thats not good enough i see, what would be good enough ?
 
johnmuise said:
Deep Thought said:
How did Noah have this huge gene pool? Where is the evidence? What scientific basis is there?

Evidence? i say look around you but thats not good enough i see, what would be good enough ?
That'd be begging the question, wouldn't it?

However, you propose that noah and his family held a higher variance of genes than today's humans do. Hence it is your obligation to provide the mechanism how this could have worked.

Keep in mind, noah's children are out of the equation already, as they only hold allele which also are present in noah or his wife. Unless she cheated on him, that is ;)
 
jwu said:
johnmuise said:
Deep Thought said:
How did Noah have this huge gene pool? Where is the evidence? What scientific basis is there?

Evidence? i say look around you but thats not good enough i see, what would be good enough ?
That'd be begging the question, wouldn't it?

However, you propose that noah and his family held a higher variance of genes than today's humans do. Hence it is your obligation to provide the mechanism how this could have worked.

Keep in mind, noah's children are out of the equation already, as they only hold allele which also are present in noah or his wife. Unless she cheated on him, that is ;)

why are they out of the question? they would still be able to produce offspring.
 
why are they out of the question? they would still be able to produce offspring.
Their genomes are only recombinations of their parent's genomes. They therefore cannot have any genes which their parents don't have as well. Hence they cannot contribute own unique genetic material to this gene pool. Well, except for mutations.
 
jwu said:
johnmuise said:
Deep Thought said:
How did Noah have this huge gene pool? Where is the evidence? What scientific basis is there?

Evidence? i say look around you but thats not good enough i see, what would be good enough ?
That'd be begging the question, wouldn't it?

However, you propose that noah and his family held a higher variance of genes than today's humans do. Hence it is your obligation to provide the mechanism how this could have worked.

Keep in mind, noah's children are out of the equation already, as they only hold allele which also are present in noah or his wife. Unless she cheated on him, that is ;)

It's not a big a gene pool as apes supposedly had. :lol: Sorry friend, but when you claim that apes passed on genes they didn't even carry, then you're the last person to question the descendants of Noah's sons! If apes can breed human descendants, then Noah can breed anything!! So your question is contradictory and therefore bogus. ;-)
 
Heidi said:
It's not a big a gene pool as apes supposedly had. :lol: Sorry friend, but when you claim that apes passed on genes they didn't even carry, then you're the last person to complain about the descendants of Noah's sons! If apes can breed human descendants, then Noah can breed anything!!
Please learn what the ToE really is about. No scientist claims that our early ancestors already carry these genes.

And no-one claims that a non-human had a human child. It just doesn't work that way...
 
jwu said:
Heidi said:
It's not a big a gene pool as apes supposedly had. :lol: Sorry friend, but when you claim that apes passed on genes they didn't even carry, then you're the last person to complain about the descendants of Noah's sons! If apes can breed human descendants, then Noah can breed anything!!
Please learn what the ToE really is about. No scientist claims that our early ancestors already carry these genes.

And no-one claims that a non-human had a human child. It just doesn't work that way...

Yes, I know that. They claim that the genes, well...just changed into human genes "over time." So if you believe that animal genes can change into humans, then why in the world do you question Noah's descendants? :o At least Noah was human. he wasn't a wild beast. :lol: So again, if ape genes can turn into human genes, then Noah can certainly breed humans descendants with variable genes. There are always gene variations within each species, not from one species to another. :roll:
 
So if you believe that animal genes can change into humans, then why in the world do you question Noah's descendants?
That'd be evolution on steroids. For this to work you'd have to accept evolution at a pace that is way beyond what the ToE actually proposes.

Proposing this while at the same time denying the viability of the ToE seems to be somewhat self-contradictive.
 
jwu said:
So if you believe that animal genes can change into humans, then why in the world do you question Noah's descendants?
That'd be evolution on steroids. For this to work you'd have to accept evolution at a pace that is way beyond what the ToE actually proposes.

Proposing this while at the same time denying the viability of the ToE seems to be somewhat self-contradictive.

Sorry but what's contradictory is claiming that mutation exists but doesn't exist at the same time. You do believe in mutation, don't you? If not, then you deny the whole theory of evolution. If you do, then why ask about Noah's descendants? ;-)
 
Heidi said:
Sorry but what's contradictory is claiming that mutation exists but doesn't exist at the same time. You do believe in mutation, don't you? If not, then you deny the whole theory of evolution. If you do, then why ask about Noah's descendants? ;-)
It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. I don't claim they don't exist at all - but that there are limits to what evolution can achieve within a set timeframe.

From australopithecus to homo sapiens over the course of several million years is one thing, from one family to the genetic diversity of mankind in a few dozen generations at most is another.
 
jwu said:
Heidi said:
Sorry but what's contradictory is claiming that mutation exists but doesn't exist at the same time. You do believe in mutation, don't you? If not, then you deny the whole theory of evolution. If you do, then why ask about Noah's descendants? ;-)
It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. I don't claim they don't exist at all - but that there are limits to what evolution can achieve within a set timeframe.

From australopithecus to homo sapiens over the course of several million years is one thing, from one family to the genetic diversity of mankind in a few dozen generations at most is another.

Again, if it's possible for apes or a fictitious beast called a common ancestor to pass along genes that mutated into humans, then it's certainly possible for humans to pass along mutated human genes to their offspring. So once again, his comment is bogus and desperate.
 
Again, if it's possible for apes or a fictitious beast called a common ancestor to pass along genes that mutated into humans, then it's certainly possible for humans to pass along mutated human genes to their offspring.
No, it's not, because the latter requires a way higher mutation rate than the former. The process of evolution cannot be accellerated indefinitely.
 
As a cap to this discussion, even if all the races did not come from Noah, the races we see today are all in fact 100% human in every respect, they simply adapted to their environment not evolved... adapted. i can get used to cold whether when i go away for training, to the point of running around in my boxers at -40 celcius, (true story :D) did i just evolve ?
 
jwu said:
Again, if it's possible for apes or a fictitious beast called a common ancestor to pass along genes that mutated into humans, then it's certainly possible for humans to pass along mutated human genes to their offspring.
No, it's not, because the latter requires a way higher mutation rate than the former. The process of evolution cannot be accellerated indefinitely.

That's certainly true. It's much harder for a wild beast to mutate into a human than for humans to breed human offspring with varying degrees of traits. In fact, it's impossible as reality shows. ;-)
 
Before we can say how different races formed, we must first find what constitutes a race, and then see a little about how genetics operates. During the 1960's, many people began to try to eliminate racism and its prejudices. The A.A.A.S. convened a conference, attended by many experts in the field. Noted taxonomist Ernst Mayr said,

"... But if we look at some recent textbooks on physical anthropology, we find that in one textbook they recognize five human races, in the next textbook they recognize sixty-five human races. Races there are; how to delimit them, how to draw the line between them is not only difficult, it is impossible." (Ernst Mayr, in Science and the Concept of Race, American Association for the Advancement of Science, New York: Columbia University Press, 1968, page 16).

Speaking at the same conference, Bentley Glass said,

"Races are subdivisions of a species. There is no real distinction between races, in the anthropological or zoological sense, and subspecies. Races (or subspecies) are always separated from each other in space or time. In other words, contemporaneous races or subspecies always are separated from each other geographically." (Bentley Glass, Science and the Concept of Race, page88.)

But how did different races form in the first place, if there was originally a large group of similar people? It's a well-known fact that if a few individuals from some much larger group are isolated, the variety within the small group's gene-pool is reduced. Some genes that are subordinate in most members of the original large group will be completely missing in the smaller group. Therefore, later generations from the small group, if left in isolation, will never develop some of the diversity of the original large group. Glass called this the "Founder's Effect," and explained:

"Small populations therefore come to differ radically in their gene frequencies from the populations of their origin ... Whenever a new colony is established by a very few individuals, it cannot be fully and proportionately representative of the gene pool from which it is drawn." (Glass, op.cit., page 91).

Darker or lighter skin is not caused directly by a person's being more or less exposed to intense sunlight. It's caused by the amount of a pigment caled melanin, and this is controlled by genetic factors. People with more melanin have darker skin, and this helps them be more resistent to skin cancers from intense sunlight. Natural selection tends to promote dark skin for those living in hot areas. On the other hand, people with less melanin can utilize the sun's rays to better produce vitamin D, which helps them to avoid rickets, and is needed in polar lattitudes. Thus natural selection tends to concentrate light-skinned people in the polar regions. In both cases, the lack of disease (cancer or rickets) selectively enhances people of certain color.

Noah and his family almost certainly had medium brown skin, and had a full complement of genes that included all that today's peoples have. But his descendants became isolated groups as they spread over the world. Each isolated group must have had fewer of certain recessive genes than some of the other groups; in time these became completely absent, so all members of that group would share an appearance different from other groups. In other words, they would become a different race.

This effect became especially enhanced after the dispersion following the Tower of Babel. At that time, God caused a confusion of languages and deliberate dispersion to far-off places for the various small groups. This isolation quickly caused differentiation of groups and proliferation of races.

We could formulate two general rules for formation or dissolution of races, as follows:

1. If a small portion of an initially broad population is isolated for many generations, then a "race" is produced, because their gene pool is reduced in variety. Members of this race share common characteristics that are different from those of descendants of some different isolated group, whose gene pool has a different makeup.
2. Conversely, if two "races" that had previously been isolated for many generations are brought together and then intermarry, later members of this newly merged broader society lose the sharp differences of the original races, and get characteristics that cover a wider range of shared average appearances. Their new gene pool shares from both original races.

http://www.rae.org/bits18.htm
 
Back
Top