How did the various kind of humans (or "races??") come about?

But you and Baptist Vine proposed two different ideas. Yours was that Adam and Eve by themselves contained all the variety necessary. I pointed out that this is not possible, that there must be something more to it than that. As an example, I used one particular gene that is found in 43 different forms. Since each variant gene could have been on one chromosome and between the two of them there could have been 4 different versions of this chromosome, some mechanism must account for the rest of the variation. There must be some mechanism capable of generating new, useful DNA.

Baptist Vine then proposed that mutation can handle this but that there are limits. I am trying to find out what his supposed limits are. What kind of changes does he think is allowed? Are new genes and new functions allowed? What kind of changes are not allowed and why?

If you would like to expand your original answer based on my response to it, I would be very interested. Or if you wish to take the other stance the BV is taking and expand on his answer, that, too, would be interesting.

Edit to add:

You also said "by the way, if you just compare black eye dominant genes to green eye recessive genes in an overly simplified formula you are conservatively looking at 548,397,397,200,000,000,000,000,000 possible combinations give or take a few trillion. And that is only comparing 2 choices (the human genome is extremely complex, offering thousands of possible variations within each person."

Could you give us some idea how you came up with that figure or at least a link? Two genes, a dominant and a recessive, seem to me to be able to only combine in 3 different ways: two dominant, two revessive or one of each.

 

IMO, Noah, along with the other flood survivors, would make better reference and Adam and Eve.

 

Well, from the time of Noah, one woman was the mother of all and that would mean from the time of Noah all people everywhere inherited their mitochondrial DNA from Noah's wife.

Now scientists, in analyzing the variation present in mitochondrial DNA, come up with the one common mitochondrial DNA dating back somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 to 150,000 years.

Any suggestions as to where they went wrong in their analysis?

 

I've never quite understood how the theory of back-tracing mitochondrial DNA worked. Mitochondrial DNA while it doesn't undergo crossing in meiosis, still is subject to mutations. Can you give us a brief summary of the concept?

 

[/QUOTE]What types of changes do you think are allowed by this type of genetic variation? How far can it go? Can the adaptations include novel genes and functions? [/QB][/QUOTE]


Whatever a "kind" is, you stay within that.

Birds stay birds, but more species of birds occur, and birds adapted to better survive or become more efficient etc.

Dogs stay dogs, humans stay humans, but within what they are, new genes may be made to enable survival, make more efficient.

 

But you do not answer the question.

I'll add another. Define kind. Are ALL birds one "kind" for example? But please answer the larger question.

Now, do you allow that this process can produce new genes and functions?

What limits how much change can happen to a population with time as adaptations accumulate?

 

Skin colour is largely a function of a pigment in our body called melanin. Its function is to absorb radiation from the sun to minimize mutations to our DNA which would cause things like cancer.

Those folks from climates with more sunshine have higher levels of melanin resulting in darker skin while folks from climates with less sunshine have lower levels of melanin resulting in lighter skin. When we tan in the sun, it is our body's natural production of melanin that darkens our skin.</font>[/QUOTE]I should add another facet to the melanin picture. Melanin in our skin is also related to our natural production of Vitamin D. When UV light from the sun reacts with cholesterol in our body to eventually form vitamin D. High levels of melanin block this process and when combined with low levels of sunshine, results in a deficiency disease called rickets which is a softening of the bones.

Darker skinned folks are prone to vitamin D deficiencies in areas with low sunlight and this is one of the theoretically proposed reasons why lighter skinned folks fared better and thrived in more Northern parts of the world.

 

Hey here's a great link for EVEYONE to check out:
http://answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/races18.asp

It's a great site showing the scientific evidence for the Bible. This link is about how the races came from Noah's sons.

-David

 

I don't have an exact definition of kind. That is probably not good enough for you, but that is where the current debate lies. I am still thinking about it.

No new "kinds", but new genes within "kinds" are allowed. Actually, it's not so much what is allowed as what can be observed to occur.

Maybe the definition of kind I have in mind but don't yet have specific mechanical, technical definition for yet is closest to genus or phylum; I have to research the definitions of these in taxonomy.

Darwin wondered about the origin of species because he wondered whether there was a natural mechanism that allowed change and variation to occur, ie many different types of eagles, sparrows, etc, but all birds. Do new species occur? Yes.

But no new "kinds".

New and novel functions occur, enough so to make many different types of species, but they don't turn birds into dogs.

 

But once you allow for new functions to be produced by mutation and selection and once you allow for speciation based on this, you have lost the fight.

All of evolution has never been more than speciation. Even the great transformations, new orders and classes, are nothing more than a series of speciation events. Look at this transition from reptiles to mammals.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000261

If I were to present anyone step as an example of evolution, you would call it merely a variation within kind, a simple speciation event, not something really new. But look at the end result. Something completely different.

There is no possible mechanism you can propose to prevent such changes. Mutation and selection are all that are needed. The whole process is nothing more than a string of speciation events.

 

Nobody loses if that is the truth and the fight is for the truth. Isn't speciation due to selection allowed and considered "micro-evolution" under the "kind" theories?

 

But "macroevolution" is nothing but a series or "micro-" steps. If you allow that "microevolution" can happen then you have allowed that "macroevolution" can happen. It is simply a matter of degree. The process happens or it does not happen. Once you allow that the process happens, then there is nothing to prevent the larger changes.

 

I know and agree, although I probably differ from you on whether it happens or not. For me scientific understanding isn't about whether I allow anything to happen but whether anything has been observed to happen.

I was under the impression that most "kind" theorists allow for "microevolution".

 

Hmm. I was reading some of your other posts and maybe we don't differ on this.

 

I'll have more to say on this later. I'll try to keep up with the questions.

I have thought of this too.

But I think the answer will be found in function, ie if a change makes a bird a better bird, then another change cannot take you away from that too far or the bird will cease.

The complexity of the changes, working in concert to increase the organisms sophistication, will ensure that changes must work in accordance with what has already gone on before.

Something like that, I imagine.

This has to do with the randomness of genetic mutations, and whether those changes are beneficial to the organism at the time they occur. The degree of sophistication of the organism serves to act as a de facto restriction on what can occur.

 

this is one of those questions you will have to ask Daddy when you get home.