According to the Torah/Bible, there was only one man placed on earth origionally be god, Adam. A woman was made out of one of Adam's ribs, Eve, and these two humans are said to have populated the entire earth with their offspring. The children of Adam and Eve migrated across the globe, populating the continents.

Christians are able to play off the evidence that history extends back farther than the 6000 years since Adam and Eve by claiming that the evidence in bones or rocks or even astronomy and the universe was placed that way by god. However, they are unable to claim that humans were placed in other areas because the Bible/Torah tells us that only one man Adam was created in god's image.

Since the time of Adam, Christians currently admit that historians views of things are fairly accurate, and that things proven with solely modern history are unquestionable. Tests with rapidly multiplying organisms are able to determine the number of genetic mutations that occur at a certain rate equal to about 1 letter mutation per 1000 generations. By this logic we can determine the time period when certain groups broke off of the main, 63000 years ago for the Aborigionese of Australia. Adam was one father, how can this be explained by god?? God may be above logic, but he is not above his own word.

According to the myth of Noah's flood, there are aborigionese familial records, and physical human modern evidence that can be seen date back to before the time of the flood. These people have records of themselves on that island before the flood, yet in the flood all humans, animals, and all other non-marine species were wiped out except for a pair who were dropped off at a single location to procreate for their entire species once again. Yet, the aborigionese were there at that time and were not dropped there by the Ark. How can this be explained??

First, you must suspend all logic.

Now, you must have faith.

There you go.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

First, you must suspend all logic.

Now, you must have faith.

There you go.

doesn't that eqaute to:

"hey, just trust me"

?

NOAH's sons and wives genesis ten read!!!

quote:Originally posted by blacksh33p18:

doesn't that eqaute to:

"hey, just trust me"

?



No, because to trust someone you don't need to suspend logic. (Unless you already know they are untrustworthy)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

According to the Torah/Bible, there was only one man placed on earth origionally be god, Adam. A woman was made out of one of Adam's ribs, Eve, and these two humans are said to have populated the entire earth with their offspring. The children of Adam and Eve migrated across the globe, populating the continents.

Actually, they probably only populated Mesopotamia, and not much further than this region.

However, they are unable to claim that humans were placed in other areas because the Bible/Torah tells us that only one man Adam was created in god's image.

The fact that we are created in the image of God means that God assigned some of His attributes to be given to man. We are able to reason, we have a mind, will, and emotions just as God does. This doesn't mean that God is anthropomorphic. There is no reason to assume that God created a race of men elsewhere, otherwise, He would have said so.

Tests with rapidly multiplying organisms are able to determine the number of genetic mutations that occur at a certain rate equal to about 1 letter mutation per 1000 generations.

Mutations are either harmful or indifferent. They don't lend themselves to bigger and better things.



By this logic we can determine the time period when certain groups broke off of the main, 63000 years ago for the Aborigionese of Australia. Adam was one father, how can this be explained by god?? God may be above logic, but he is not above his own word.

What makes you think that Aborigionese made their way to Australia 63,000 years ago? What are you basing that on? Are you suggesting that humans had vessels 63,000 years ago?

According to the myth of Noah's flood, there are aborigionese familial records, and physical human modern evidence that can be seen date back to before the time of the flood. These people have records of themselves on that island before the flood, yet in the flood all humans, animals, and all other non-marine species were wiped out except for a pair who were dropped off at a single location to procreate for their entire species once again. Yet, the aborigionese were there at that time and were not dropped there by the Ark. How can this be explained??[/B]

What are you basing this on?



[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 11-14-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Mutations are either harmful or indifferent. They don't lend themselves to bigger and better things.

He didn't say anything about the nature of mutation just that they happen at a predicatable rate and can be used to date populations.

quote:

What makes you think that Aborigionese made their way to Australia 63,000 years ago? What are you basing that on? Are you suggesting that humans had vessels 63,000 years ago?

The aboriginese did not neccesaraly come to Austrailia 63,000 years ago. All that means is their tribe started 63,000 years ago. Racism is nothing new so complete physical isolation is not nessesary for genetic isolation. And it is posible to island hop in primitive vessles.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MasterPython:

[B] The aboriginese did not neccesaraly come to Austrailia 63,000 years ago. All that means is their tribe started 63,000 years ago. Racism is nothing new so complete physical isolation is not nessesary for genetic isolation. And it is posible to island hop in primitive vessles.

My mentioning of mutations is that they aren't beneficial, so any people born with mutations, died with mutations. You can't gain something from losing something else. You can have changes by sorting or losing genetic information, but you can never gain new information. What is in the DNA is already in there. So the point is moot, therefore.

And there is no evidence that Australians had vessels or that anyone had vessels 63,000 years ago. So to say that is, is just an assertion. But if the earth were younger than what many believe, then there is no problem with transmigration at all.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



My mentioning of mutations is that they aren't beneficial, so any people born with mutations, died with mutations. You can't gain something from losing something else. You can have changes by sorting or losing genetic information, but you can never gain new information. What is in the DNA is already in there. So the point is moot, therefore.



Not so.

1. Mutations can be beneficial. To claim otherwise is to not know what makes a mutation "harmful" or "benign" to begin with!

Whether a mutation is harmful or benign is determined by the environment. A mutation can be harmful in one environment and beneficial in another, and vice-versa. Or it could be benign in one environment and still remain benign in another.



2. Genetic information can be added.

Now I suggest you either prove you assertions (may I suggest you do so in the thread you said you were going to make...) or admit that you cannot.



quote:

And there is no evidence that Australians had vessels or that anyone had vessels 63,000 years ago. So to say that is, is just an assertion. But if the earth were younger than what many believe, then there is no problem with transmigration at all.



1. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

2. Ships were not necessary. There was a land bridge connecting Australia with New-Guinea.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

If there is nothing to go by then how can we say with any validity there were? But as it is, there would have to be millions of instances of these mutations still present to get from pint A to point Z.

2. Ships were not necessary. There was a land bridge connecting Australia with New-Guinea.

Even supposing there was a land bridge connecting New Guinea to Australia, New Guinea is still not connected to the mainland of any other nation. Austronesians such as Malaysians, Indonesians, Filipinos and Polynesians had to sail from southern China and settle along the coast of New Guinea and on surrounding islands.

1. Mutations can be beneficial. To claim otherwise is to not know what makes a mutation "harmful" or "benign" to begin with!

Yes there is. It's due to hox proteins malfunctioning. The other ones are just small adaptations that does not 'make' new DNA. It just configures it differently or deletes old information. Nothing new.

Whether a mutation is harmful or benign is determined by the environment. A mutation can be harmful in one environment and beneficial in another, and vice-versa. Or it could be benign in one environment and still remain benign in another.

The enviornment does not add new genetic information. It's the same thing that working out all your life is not going to grant your offspring the same benefit. The information will likely be in the DNA/RNA as it is.

Now I suggest you either prove you assertions (may I suggest you do so in the thread you said you were going to make...) or admit that you cannot.

I can't prove something that does not exist. So since you are claiming that these mutations occur, you are going to have to show us how and why... Bear in mind that I've already seen your TalkOrigins reasons and they don't qualify. Simply put, there should millions of examples, not something so small as Sickle Cell Anemia.





[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 11-14-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

What makes you think that Aborigionese made their way to Australia 63,000 years ago? What are you basing that on? Are you suggesting that humans had vessels 63,000 years ago?

You've lost that argument once already.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

The enviornment does not add new genetic information. It's the same thing that working out all your life is not going to grant your offspring the same benefit. The information will likely be in the DNA/RNA as it is

Why don't you try reading all the words in threads. He did not say that the enviroment changes DNA. He said that some mutations are only helpfull or harmfull in certain enviroments.

Not even sure why you decided to talk about mutations. The only reason they were mentioned in this thread was becasue they happen again and again at a predictable rate. The thread has nothing to do with any affects that they might have.

Do you just skim the topics and post a rant when you see certain words?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Even supposing there was a land bridge connecting New Guinea to Australia, New Guinea is still not connected to the mainland of any other nation. Austronesians such as Malaysians, Indonesians, Filipinos and Polynesians had to sail from southern China and settle along the coast of New Guinea and on surrounding islands.





That's assuming the continents and land near Australia and New-Guinea were in the same position and the same shape as they are now. That's a very wrong assumption.

It also assumes that there were no other similar land bridges connecting the other islands in the archipelago, which is wrong as well.

quote:Yes there is. It's due to hox proteins malfunctioning. The other ones are just small adaptations that does not 'make' new DNA. It just configures it differently or deletes old information. Nothing new.

What are you answering "yes it is" to? I wasn't asking a question.

If you're saying that "yes" genetic information can be added, then your initial statement was wrong.

If you're saying it cannot, then either substantiate that or admit that you cannot.

quote:The enviornment does not add new genetic information. It's the same thing that working out all your life is not going to grant your offspring the same benefit. The information will likely be in the DNA/RNA as it is.

I did not say that the environment added new genetic information. Please do not put words in my mouth.

I said that the environment an organism was part of, is what determines whether a mutation is "harmful" or "beneficial" thus to claim that there are no beneficial mutations, which you did, is completely erroneous.

quote:I can't prove something that does not exist. So since you are claiming that these mutations occur, you are going to have to show us how and why... Bear in mind that I've already seen your TalkOrigins reasons and they don't qualify. Simply put, there should millions of examples, not something so small as Sickle Cell Anemia.

Shifting the burden of proof is not going to work. You made the claim. The "possibility" or "impossibility" of you supporting your claims is an argument for you not making such ridiculous statements in the future, not an argument for you being able to make such claims without backing them up. Not to mention that it is not impossible since you can prove that adding genetic information is physically impossible.

Now, are you admitting that you have absolutely no shred of evidence substantiating the assertions you made? If so, then I am asking you to say so and to abandon that argument. If not, then please provide the evidence at once or again, abandon your argument.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx: 1. Mutations can be beneficial. To claim otherwise is to not know what makes a mutation "harmful" or "benign" to begin with!

Yes there is. It's due to hox proteins malfunctioning. The other ones are just small adaptations that does not 'make' new DNA. It just configures it differently or deletes old information. Nothing new.

What are you talking about, nooblet? Humans have LOTS of duplicate genes, this allows for them to be tweaked by evolution to fit a variety of new purposea. How did these duplicates arise? Look up something called transposable elements. Or perhaps you should talk to someone who actually knows something about genetics instead of talking out of your ass.

I'm afraid you're all wrong. The world is 157 years old, and its age NEVER CHANGES.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:



No, because to trust someone you don't need to suspend logic. (Unless you already know they are untrustworthy)

Exactly, then why would one need to suspend logic at all?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Mutations are either harmful or indifferent. They don't lend themselves to bigger and better things.

WHAT? did you just say?... You've got to be kidding me... Mutations are either Detrimental, Beneficial, or Superficial...

I’m beginning to have some real concerns about the level of understanding you have in the field of evolution… It’s a very valid topic, how do you explain it… Another question I have is also from Genesis…

Adam and Eve knew they were naked, and had to cover up…

Why is it, less than a century ago, humans were found in the Amazon, oblivious to the fact they were naked? Had they forgotten? or did they not have sin… And were not burdened by the shroud of knowledge placed upon all humans by God?



[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 11-20-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

WHAT? did you just say?... You've got to be kidding me... Mutations are either Detrimental, Beneficial, or Superficial...

I’m beginning to have some real concerns about the level of understanding you have in the field of evolution… It’s a very valid topic, how do you explain it… Another question I have is also from Genesis…

Adam and Eve knew they were naked, and had to cover up…

Why is it, less than a century ago, humans were found in the Amazon, oblivious to the fact they were naked? Had they forgotten? or did they not have sin… And were not burdened by the shroud of knowledge placed upon all humans by God?





Most mutations are harmful, by far... Occasionally, mutations are benign in nature. But incredibly rare, are is mutations that are beneficial in one instance by default, such as Sickle Cell Anemia. SCA is incredibly harmful, but it does offer a nominal amount of protection against Malaria. But you have to consider the overall drawback of the disease, which does not in any way lend a helping hand to the host. Therefore, something like SCA is not going to help perpetuate a species because it can help ward off Malaria. The overall dispostion of SCA is going to be harmful.

Evolution is utterly dependant on such mutations being beneficial, otherwise, the theory could never propogate itself.

These mutations are typically caused by a malfunction of DNA replication during meiosis. The components that comprise the cell are either deleted or are rearranged. New DNA does not form, which is the only way you can get an entirely new specie. The genome sequence of any given specie is already mapped out. The first set of DNA/RNA nucleotides were picture perfect from it's inception. Every one to follow is subject to entropic forces that errode genetic information. What I mean is, we are all genetically inferior to our forefathers. But as I said, if macroevolution were true, we would be dependant on it. As it is, this isn't the case.

DNA has an incredible amount of capacity as far as variations are concerned. But this is simply an instance of microevolution via small adaptive changes. I don't know why people contend with this. This does not in any way mean that organisms are continually getting better as we go, sort of, 'working out it's kinks'.

As far as your Amazonian tribes, no it's not a sin for them to be naked. God was explicit on the point that if you are unaware of sin, it is not, therefore, a sin. The moment you know you are sinning, it then, becomes a sin for you.

I think the better question you need to ask is why virtually every civilization KNOWS that being being naked is taboo? And, I thin we should ask why it is that humans are the only animals that seem to care about being naked at all? How and why, does evolution account for this obvious human trait, where as, their supposed ancestors and every former ancestor to date could care less? How does evolution explain this? How does evolution account for morality at all?

The point is, neither side can be proved without a doubt. The only people who can know absolutely are those that are dead, assuming they still exist. But these arguments can go on forever, with neither side getting ahead, so there's not much point in them.

"Proof is for mathematicians and alcohol"

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

SCA is incredibly harmful, but it does offer a nominal amount of protection against Malaria. But you have to consider the overall drawback of the disease, which does not in any way lend a helping hand to the host.

Sickle Cell Aneimia is controled by a rececive gene. To get the disease you need to inherit it from both parents. if you only inherit it from one parent you get the resistance to malaria. If one parent has the resistance the chances of passing it down are 50/50 and the chances of the child have sickle cell anemia are zero. If both parents have the resistance there is only a 25% chance of the child having cicle cell anemia but a 50% chance of getting the restistance. If somebody get two pair of the gene they would have no chance of reaching adulthood until about fifty years ago. The effect of being malaria resistant would be huge if you spend your entire life around malaria carying moquitoes.

Two other diseases that work like this are Cystic Fibrosis which with a single gene increases your chances of surviving cholera and similar diseases. And Tay-Sachs wich might give resistance to TB.

quote: New DNA does not form, which is the only way you can get an entirely new specie.

A new speces is formed whenever the DNA changes enough so that two populations can no longer produce fertile offspring.

quote: This does not in any way mean that organisms are continually getting better as we go, sort of, 'working out it's kinks'.

Exactly, evolution is not a purpose driven process. It is just the effect of mutations and the enviroment.



quote:I thin we should ask why it is that humans are the only animals that seem to care about being naked at all?

Of course human being are the only animals that care about being naked, we are the only ones that can do anything about it.



A closed mouth gathers no foot.

Maybe you should learn what you are talking about before you post.

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 11-20-2005).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MasterPython:

Of course human being are the only animals that care about being naked, we are the only ones that can do anything about it.



First of all, as I pointed out before, the negatives of the disease by far supercede it's positive attributes in every way. Sickle cell anemia is an inherited blood disorder characterized primarily by chronic anemia and periodic episodes of pain. And that means, it's quite deadly. The underlying component of red blood cells don't function as they should. Hemoglobin molecules in each red blood cell carry oxygen from the lungs to body organs and tissues and bring carbon dioxide back to the lungs. So, someone please tell me how 'possibly' not catching Malaria from it is better than not getting enough oxygen in your system? I saw a guy die in boot camp because of it. You can hardly do anything productive when you have SCA. This, of course, typifies my argument that given the nature of the disease, in the wild, natural selection would inevitably overtake them.

As for 'new' species forming from DNA, it doesn't happen. There has never been one example of a new species coming into existance that anyone has ever seen. What you must be refering to is what a mule is to a horse. But, that isn't a new species at all. Furthermore, the mule is sterile, therefore, it cannot perpetuate the specie.

If evolution wasn't purpose driven, then how is it these adaptations occur at all? For instance, how does the mantis aquire such intriqate camoflague? How can you look at the mantis and honestly tell yourself that it was the product of chance? What was the mechanism of their mutation that they can look like a twig? What contrivances could have arose to perfrom what sure looks alot like an intelligence behind it?

And as far as humans being the only animals that can do anything about it is not true. A chimp/dolphin/elephant could all do the same thing, as far as intelligence is concerned. So why and how does evolution promulgate this? And how and why did a system of morality occur in humans and no where else?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

So, someone please tell me how 'possibly' not catching Malaria from it is better than not getting enough oxygen in your system?

To the individuals that have two sickle cell genes and get the disease it is bad, they die. But if you are just a carier with only one cickle cell gene you get the resistance and are are healthy. Evolution work on populations not individuals. A few idvividulas will die but more will gain an advantage.

Example: That guy you saw die, he did not benifit form have sickle cell anemia but both his parents had the benifit of the malaria resistance because they are cariers.

A guy named Gregor Mendel discovered how genes are passed on over a hundred years ago, maybe you should look into it.



quote:. There has never been one example of a new species coming into existance that anyone has ever seen.

I have never seen God either so does that mean he does not exist?

quote: What you must be refering to is what a mule is to a horse. But, that isn't a new species at all.

But donkeys and horses are diferent species. They have diferent numbers of cromasomes so they can't produce fertile offspring. But isn't it interesting that they are similar enough at the genetic level that their cromasomes could match up well enough to preuce a sterile freak? Like they are modifications off the same base.



quote:If evolution wasn't purpose driven, then how is it these adaptations occur at all? For instance, how does the mantis aquire such intriqate camoflague?

Well maybe there were some hot pinkproto-mantisis', but if there were they would not have lasted long so we will never know. If you don't get the basic concept of natural selection I don't know what I can say.

quote:And as far as humans being the only animals that can do anything about it is not true. A chimp/dolphin/elephant could all do the same thing, as far as intelligence is concerned.

Do you honestly thing that clothing was invented so people can't see you naked? Modesty is learned trait. Young children have no problem running around naked until adults drill it into their heads incesently that they need to wear clothes. The only thing clothing has to do with biology is that when you wear it your body is effected less by the enviroment.

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 11-20-2005).]

The more people with the Sickle Cell trait are going to be mating. When they mate, the offspring will develop the full blown disease. The only way to perpetuate a specie is via sexual intercourse. So the more people that are populating are exacerbating the disease. (that's why more and more people are getting the disease).

As far as Gregor Mendel's works, yes, I'm quite familiar with them. I don't see why someone who posits evolution would use Mendel as a reference. His theory is at ends with Darwins. Even though Mendellian theory came out before Darwin, it's only been in the last centurey that he recieved any credit for it.

Horses and donkeys are from the Equine family and genus. And, this is a case of devolution, not evolution. But to say that they are some how not related is silly. That's like saying a man with down syndrome isn't really a person because the number of chromasomes is different. Just like down syndrome would devolution, so would the donkey.

Seriously though, about the Mantis, think about it... There is a mind behind that guy. And the octopus. I mean, it's so intriqate that to say it wasn't designed seems absurd to me. How can nothing produce a stick-like figure for camoflauge? What possibly could be the mechanism of that?

Modesty is something that is learned to a degree, just like fashion is learned to a degree. But civilizations that have never come into contact with one another understand that covering the genitalia is for some reason, important.

But, if you want to break down the story of Adam and Eve, that is a parable to sin. They tried to cover their sin in their own strength. That was what the heart of the scripture is trying to convey.

But, nonetheless, all humans seem to understand the principle of modesty. But why?

Good chat... I'm going to bed because I'm a pansy. I'll respond to any other posts you have tomorrow. Peace out, homie.....

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

The more people with the Sickle Cell trait are going to be mating. When they mate, the offspring will develop the full blown disease.

In the past the few that die of the full blown disease were offset by the many that were saved from malaria. Right now the advatages are not so evident. Since drugs to treat it were invented it is no longer a death sentance or even a serios threat, and since DDT was invented it has been eraticated in many areas. In the past it would have been comparitivly as bad as the smallpox, something you get and you can do nothing to treat it or increase your odds of survival.

I think the idea the gene becoming overly prevalent was spread as a way to keep black people from have children so they would die out.

quote:. His theory is at ends with Darwins.

How? The work Mendel did proved that evolution is posible. That traits can be passed down whole and not diluted.

quote:And, this is a case of devolution, not evolution. But to say that they are some how not related is silly.

Evvolution is not a planned process so nothing can de-evolve.



And if they are related how? Are you saying that God personaly tweaked the genes of two populations primitive horses? How Else could they have become diferent if they did not evolve?

quote:That's like saying a man with down syndrome isn't really a person because the number of chromasomes is different.

That is technicaly corect if the definition of person is Homo Sapian. Generaly the definition of species is a population that can produce fertile offspring. There are a few exceptions like wolves/dogs, cattle/bison/yaks which are considered diferent because of physical characteristics.

quote:Seriously though, about the Mantis, think about it... There is a mind behind that guy.

Show me something that proves that God is concerned about the physical world. He suposidly had Moses sum up the entire effort of creation in two pages put had him blab on and on about laws for every situation. If you want to take the Bible completly literaly plants are a by product of the earth and not a direct creation of God. All the religions I can think of are either based almost enirely on the mind and soul or finding the spirtiual aspects of the world around us and interacting with them. ID and creationism are looking for God in all the wrong places.

quote:

But, nonetheless, all humans seem to understand the principle of modesty. But why?

All humans? What about the one that live in the Amazon that run around naked that started this topic? If you want to lay off the nakedness I agree that all cultures have rules, taboos and customs, even chimps and gorilas. Human culture is just more complicated because we are more complicated.

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 11-20-2005).]

Why is it that every thread dealing with fundamentalist beliefs break down into creationists throwing wild claims around but we can't get them to start a specific and well written thread for creationism in the Mad science section?

So many errors it's sad, it would be nice if people did research before stating things. For example, most mutations are harmful? Bullcrap, most people have around 6 mutations in them right now, I guess we should all be dead. Most mutations do nothing. As far as the claim there are no beneficial mutations, tell that to people with recessive sickle cell (or even full sickle cell) in a Malaria stricken area, or an immunity to HIV or to the olympic champion who had a mutation that naturally increased his muscle mass and efficiency or maybe say hi to the bacteria that can eat nylon, hell say hi to any bacteria anywhere that mutated to escape antibiotics. I could go on, but I'm not even sure the people that should be reading this have read this far.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 11-20-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

New DNA does not form, which is the only way you can get an entirely new specie.

I'm getting increasingly short tempered by your gross misconception of evolution... You’re pretending to profess a misleading and flawed argument… Just stop, seriously you can revere your God in other ways, you don’t have to emphatically lie to these people… Your condescension astounds me, for someone who pretends to be educated…

The first hit off google...

http://tinyurl.com/bndj3

Insertion

Mutations that result in the addition of extra DNA are called insertions. Insertions can also cause frame shift mutations, and general result in a non-functional protein.

I don’t know where you people learn evolution, but its definitely not science class… It is a proven mechanism, and is not questioned within scientific circles.. The only plague of the theory is we don’t understand spontaneous evolution, but we only conclude its existence through fossil records…



BTW: Spontaneous evolution isn’t new species creation… It appears through fossil records that the “Eye” for example evolved in many different animals around the same time… But lacking as this theory is, there’s nothing that suggests up until now, its untrue… I can’t be more stern with my wording when I say, You’ve been grossly mislead…

Edit: I'm right behind you Beta, if hyroglyphx or anyone else wants to continue arguing macroevolution, lets make a topic in Mad Scientists... It's been a theme on MyGod-Totse far too long its made me sick... I truly have no idea, where it stems from...



[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 11-20-2005).]

hyrogyphx, you don't know what you are talking about. in africa, sca is prevelent in the population because it provides resistance to malaria. not everybody has to have full blown sca to have the protection from it. they only have some sickle-shaped red blood cells, so they can run normally but malaria cannot infect the sickle-cells, so they have a greater chance of surviving malaria and passing their genes on. it is an example of microevolution, and you just can't seem to get your head around that.