human evolution, teachings within the temple and exalting ordinances.

[Traveler]

Yeah, I'm sloppy as all get out!!!!!

But;, so then must Rodney Turner be sloppy, (The Footstool of God) Earth in Scripture and Prophecy) pages 15 and 16.

But so then must Boyd K Packer be sloppy, sir, as he states in his book

(Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled) pages 289-290 stated,

"No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce "after their own kind" (gee, where did I hear that Oakland, Salt Lake, Provo, Saint George, Manti?) (see Moses 2:12, 24). They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that: every four-year old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish: a mammal will not beget reptiles; nor "do men gather . . . figs of thistles" (Mat-thew 7:16).

In the countless billions of opportunities in the reproduction of living things, one kind does not beget another. If a species ever does cross, the offspring generally cannot reproduce. The pattern for all life is the pattern of the parentage.

One of the problems here is the tendency to think that kind and species reference the same thing. I see no reason to think in this manner. Using species and kind in this manner the Ark of Noah would not be big enough to hold all the known species of worms and this is without considering the species of spiders, ants or many other insects all of which would over flow the dimensions of the Ark. In fact the Ark is not big enough for all the known species of mammals. Without some kind of evolutions beyond species the epoch of the Ark becomes less believable than evolution. Kind may refer to the difference between plants and animals. The other thing I find interesting is that in scriptures concerning the creation of life that G-d commands the living things to reproduce after their own kind only after the various “kinds” of life have been established. There is nothing in scripture to indicate that G-d did not use the currently known processes of evolution in creation.

This is demonstrated in so many obvious ways that even an ordinary mind should understand it. Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles.

A single cell zygote is even less of a life form than a reptile and yet every human life begins as a one cell living organism we call a zygote and then from that single cell bones, skin, eyes and millions of other “kinds” of living cells evolve until something identifiably human evolves. The process of a single cell becoming a human by human evolution – to be honest I am offended that an intelligent person of any stripe calls such a thing just theory and not demonstrable fact of evolution.

(Although one can easily imagine that those who accept the theory of evolution don't show much enthusiasm for genealogical research!) The theory of evolution (and it is a theory) will have an entirely different dimension when the workings of God in creation are fully revealed.

Since every living thing follows the pattern of its parentage, are we to suppose that God had some other strange pattern in mind for His offspring? Surely we, His children, are not, in the language of science, a different species than He is.

What is in error, then, when we use the term godhood to describe the ultimate destiny of mankind? We may now be young in our progression—juvenile, even infantile, compared with God. Nevertheless, in the eternities to come, if we are worthy, we may be like unto Him, enter His presence, "see as [we] are seen, and know as [we] are known," and receive "a fullness" • (D&C 76:94).

One possible defination of evolution is progression and vise versa. In essence both mean change. I see no reason that the basis of progression to be so different from evolution as to render acceptance of one and rejection of the other idea and concept.

This doctrine is in no way at variance with the scriptures. Nevertheless it is easy to understand why some Christians reject it, because it introduces the possibility that man may achieve godhood.

Boyd K. Packer

except for (gee, where did I hear that Oakland, Salt Lake, Provo, Saint George, Manti?)

I have on a number of occasions in debating the possibility of the existence of G-d with atheists that if all possibilities of evolution are to continue that it is not unreasonable to assume that a being with the abilities to manipulate evolution eventually evolve – which is the beginning of a G-d being. So that even if evolution can or does occur without G-d one must accept the possibility and likelihood that G-d will eventually evolve. This makes the atheistic stand without merit or purpose.

The Traveler

[GeneC]

There is nothing in scripture to indicate that G-d did not use the currently known processes of evolution in creation.

There is also nothing to indicate He did either.

The life of a single cell zygote is dictated by the DNA inherent in that organism.

One possible defination of evolution is progression and vise versa. In essence both mean change. I see no reason that the basis of progression to be so different from evolution as to render acceptance of one and rejection of the other idea and concept.

Evolution, no I don't buy it No Proof - Progression, yes that's what life is all about.

Edited December 1, 2010 by ThankGodForRepentence

[MarginOfError]

There is nothing in scripture to indicate that G-d did not use the currently known processes of evolution in creation.

There is also nothing to indicate He did either.

Which is kind of why the entire discussion is silly. What it boils down to is that there are two (possibly more?) entirely plausible explanations, and we insist on clinging to one merely because it fits better with whatever quotes or church leaders we've chosen to use as the authority on the matter.

It makes me want to refer back to my explanation of why I don't subscribe much to Mormon Doctrine, specifically about making assumptions to bridge gaps in our logic so that we can come to a conclusion that suits us.

My take on the matter...the development and diversification of species is a matter for science to investigate, explore, and--yes--discover. We may yet learn that evolution isn't the mechanism of creation, or we may yet learn it is. We may yet learn that some other mechanism guided the process that took billions of years to bring us to where we are. But it isn't a question for theology because, to put it simply, it doesn't deal with the eternal life and immortality of man.

So, those who cling so unbendingly to evolution are no less no more silly and absurd than those who cling unbendingly to creationism.

[GeneC]

https://lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng for the complete article The Origin of Man

By the First Presidency of the Church

First Presidency, "The Origin of Man", Ensign, Feb. 2002, 26

From Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, 75–81; capitalization, punctuation, paragraphing, and spelling standardized.

“God created man in his own image” (Gen. 1:27).

In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters. A reprinting of this important First Presidency statement will be helpful as members of the Church study the Old Testament this year.

Inquiries arise from time to time respecting the attitude of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints upon questions which, though not vital from a doctrinal standpoint, are closely connected with the fundamental principles of salvation. The latest inquiry of this kind that has reached us is in relation to the origin of man. It is believed that a statement of the position held by the Church upon this subject will be timely and productive of good.

In presenting the statement that follows we are not conscious of putting forth anything essentially new; neither is it our desire so to do. Truth is what we wish to present, and truth—eternal truth—is fundamentally old. A restatement of the original attitude of the Church relative to this matter is all that will be attempted here. To tell the truth as God has revealed it, and commend it to the acceptance of those who need to conform their opinions thereto, is the sole purpose of this presentation.

.....

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

.......

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist coeternally with Himself. He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporally—“that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.” He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant, but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its “distinct order or sphere,” and will enjoy “eternal felicity.” That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (see D&C 77:3).

[bytor2112]

Obviously Thank God for repentance....YOU have not been enlightened by the truth's of bio sciences,(or else you wouldn't quote such heresey) much like Elder Packer....who I note is rapidly becoming like President Kimball, President Benson and Elder McConkie...old and barnlike.

[GeneC]

Obviously Thank God for repentance....YOU have not been enlightened by the truth's of bio sciences,(or else you wouldn't quote such heresey) much like Elder Packer....who I note is rapidly becoming like President Kimball, President Benson and Elder McConkie...old and barnlike.

Was it something I said????

[GeneC]

Yes, that is very "sloppy". It is obvious that President Packer doesn't understand much of anything regarding truth revealed by God through the bio sciences.

HiJolly

Oh, you were actually being serious? President Packer may have stated these things in his book but were based on an October 1984 General Conference talk. Golly how useless Conference has turned out to be. (not!)

Edited December 2, 2010 by ThankGodForRepentence

[applepansy]

At this point in the discussion I would like to say..... WOW!!!!

I think we step on dangerous ground when we call apostles/prophets "old and barnlike." I also feel its a bit scarey to assume an apostle of God "doesn't understand much of anything regarding truth revealed by God through the bio sciences."

Personally, I believe in evolution for every species except humans. Evolution for humans is a theory, not a fact. Nobody has found the missing link and I doubt they ever will. We just plain don't know everything God does.... but our prophets and apostles know more than we do. I have never understood the arguments voiced here and I certainly will never agree with such disrespectful criticism of apostles and prophets.

Go ahead and slaughter my post too.

[GeneC]

Edit: Never-mind, it looks like HiJolly has addressed it.

Edit 2: Thank, you might want to reconsider your use of bold. In internet circles is comes across as screaming when used to such an extent (in small amounts it's stressing). It probably undermines your intent when you come across as someone ranting and on the edge of losing control. I notice some of your bolded text (all of it?) is supposed to be quotation. If so I recommend the quote feature on the board. That the text you are 'shouting' may be from Elder Packer doesn't necessarily change the perception much.

Yeah, like telling a poster they're SLOPPY is good internet etiquette:cool::cool:

[Dravin]

Yeah, like telling a poster they're SLOPPY is good internet etiquette:cool::cool:

It had nothing to do with internet etiquette. One could argue it's somehow rude but it isn't really. Considering your assertion was incorrect we have three main theories as to why:

1. You were unaware that your statement was incorrect.

2. You were aware that your statement was incorrect but in making your point you misspoke in your representation of evolution or in quantifying your statement as speaking about a certain subset of evolutionary theory.

3. You were aware that your statement was incorrect but purposefully choose to misrepresent evolution by your presentation.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed in your hurry you misspoke considering the other options boil down to ignorance or deceitfulness.

[JohnnyRudick]

You're getting sloppy. Evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life (which it is but that's not every aspect of evolution) is postulaed as happening over many, many years. However to say it takes incredibly long periods of time in all its aspects is false. The average beak size of an island bird changing as a result of drought to take advantage of tougher seeds (not a hypothetical) is evolution as is the evolution that can be observed in HIV. Those examples are aspects of evolution and do not take incredibly long periods of time. Evolution is an explanation for why and how things change. It is applied on both the diversity of life scale of things and the individual species or population level and need not encompass the shift from one species to another like a lot of people think of when they think of evolution.

Pardon me:huh: but I thought that was called "adaptation"

the turning on or off of info already in the program.

Even in HIV it is the virus adapting to changing environs

using code that is already in the virus.

[JohnnyRudick]

Edit: Never-mind, it looks like HiJolly has addressed it.

Edit 2: Thank, you might want to reconsider your use of bold. In internet circles is comes across as screaming when used to such an extent (in small amounts it's stressing). It probably undermines your intent when you come across as someone ranting and on the edge of losing control. I notice some of your bolded text (all of it?) is supposed to be quotation. If so I recommend the quote feature on the board. That the text you are 'shouting' may be from Elder Packer doesn't necessarily change the perception much.

I am glad you said this:mellow:

I am guiltu:( of this very thing in my ignorance.

I have done this to separate quotes from my comments on the quotes.

I had no idea I was coming across this way.

Thanks again:)

[Dravin]

Evolution for humans is a theory, not a fact.

So is evolution for everything else which you accept. Also, it is a theory in the same sense that gravity or plate tectonics is a theory.

Nobody has found the missing link and I doubt they ever will.

What do you consider the missing link? Honestly until I took biology this semester I didn't realize just how many fossils (and that includes having multiples of the same species) they were working with. They aren't exactly just working with Lucy these days: Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited December 2, 2010 by Dravin

[JohnnyRudick]

One of the problems here is the tendency to think that kind and species reference the same thing. I see no reason to think in this manner. Using species and kind in this manner the Ark of Noah would not be big enough to hold all the known species of worms and this is without considering the species of spiders, ants or many other insects all of which would over flow the dimensions of the Ark. In fact the Ark is not big enough for all the known species of mammals. Without some kind of evolutions beyond species the epoch of the Ark becomes less believable than evolution. Kind may refer to the difference between plants and animals. The other thing I find interesting is that in scriptures concerning the creation of life that G-d commands the living things to reproduce after their own kind only after the various “kinds” of life have been established. There is nothing in scripture to indicate that G-d did not use the currently known processes of evolution in creation.

I have found that most people of the Evolutionist faith put very little stock in the account of Noah and the Ark.

[GeneC]

It had nothing to do with internet etiquette. One could argue it's somehow rude but it isn't really. Considering your assertion was incorrect we have three main theories as to why:

1. You were unaware that your statement was incorrect.

2. You were aware that your statement was incorrect but in making your point you misspoke in your representation of evolution or in quantifying your statement as speaking about a certain subset of evolutionary theory.

3. You were aware that your statement was incorrect but purposefully choose to misrepresent evolution by your presentation.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed in your hurry you misspoke considering the other options boil down to ignorance or deceitfulness.

Since it wasn't my statement in the first place I wasn't unawares or aware of any incorrectness and since the statement was from an Apostle given in General Conference I choose to believe it is true until a church authority with more authority says otherwise.

And since evolution is just a theory the statement can't be proven true or untrue. You might be talking about mutation, or adaptation but not evolution.

From

“Seek Ye Diligently”

By Elder George R. Hill III

Formerly of the Seventy

George R. Hill III, "“Seek Ye Diligently”", Ensign, June 1993, 21

"The theory of evolution as presently taught posits that higher forms of life arose gradually from lower stages of living matter. Inheritable genetic changes in offspring are assumed to be spontaneous rather than the result of arranged or directed forces external to the system."

"This theory conflicts with a basic law of chemistry, the second law of thermodynamics, which states in part that it is not possible for a spontaneous process to produce a system of higher order than the system possessed at the beginning of the change."

"Many Latter-day Saints recognize that the processes involved in evolution are valid. We see improved strains and varieties of plants and animals developed through judicious selection of their parents. But we would have to agree with those who understand the limitation defined in the second law of thermodynamics limitation that such changes can only occur if guided or if outside energy is available to improve the system."

"We are in the very fortunate position of understanding that the Lord is in charge of the universe and that positive genetic changes can in fact occur under his direction. On the other hand, spontaneous improvements of the type hypothesized by devotees of current evolutionary theory remain an unsupported supposition."

Long time or short time - moot point - but Brother Packers moot point not mine.

[Dravin]

Pardon me:huh: but I thought that was called "adaptation"

the turning on or off of info already in the program.

Adaption is a part of evolution, a large part of natural selection (which is not the only method by which evolution occurs). I'm not sure what you mean by turning on or off information already in the program? Decedents are going to share the similar (DNA transcription isn't perfect, I contain DNA that neither my Mother or Father contained because of errors in copying that DNA or mutation) subset of DNA as their parents, what evolution is going to do is shift that subset of DNA around.

If you think evolution presupposes some giant genetic difference between parent and offspring such is not the case. We basically evolved dogs so that some are one way and others are a different way, note that this evolution has taken place within the same species. The idea that things don't evolve until they are a different species is incorrect.

Even in HIV it is the virus adapting to changing environs

using code that is already in the virus.

This is a classic example of evolution. As variations (HIV has a very error prone transcription process) in the genetic code of individual viruses confer a benefit the environment reduces the numbers of viruses that don't have the benefit. As a result the prevalence of a particular sequence of genetic code becomes predominate, in some cases to the point where the original sequence is no longer present in the environment (but not always). This is a classic example of natural selection. You went from a population of an organism that wasn't resistant to a drug to one that is resistant to a drug.

It doesn't even have to be a "beneficial" or big thing. If I killed every blonde person on the planet (and continued to do so to weed out recessive genes for such) the human population will evolve. Before there were genes for blonde hair, now there are none. You can do the reverse, if you kill everyone who isn't blonde for multiple generations you will have changed the genome of the population. Humans will evolve so that all humans (baring your mutations) are blonde. My guess is you scoff at this being considered evolution, but it is, evolution is much broader than most people realize. The things is that same process could be used to select for webbed toes (the key is it has to be present in the population genome, obviously killing all non-winged humans doesn't result in a population of winged humans unless winged humans is a trait that can be selected for).

Now how does one get from somewhere like wings to no wings? That is where mutations (that build upon each other) and those huge spans of time come into play and there is no guarantee that you'll ever get them.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Dravin

[Dravin]

Since it wasn't my statement in the first place I wasn't unawares or aware of any incorrectness and since the statement was from an Apostle given in General Conference I choose to believe it is true until a church authority with more authority says otherwise.

Then you were sloppy in not differentiating that:

This is precisely why evolution, in all of its aspects, involves incredibly long periods of time.

is not your statement.

And since evolution is just a theory the statement can't be proven true or untrue.

What? I can say that the theory of plate tectonics involves small earth demons moving the tectonics plates around and because it's a theory nobody can say that isn't what the theory involves?

You might be talking about mutation, or adaptation but not evolution.

I might but I'm not, I am speaking of evolution. You confuse a specific theory using evolution, the theory of the diversity of life, with the theory of evolution as a whole. This is like saying Newton's third 'law' is the sum of Newtonian physics.

You have the beginnings of a no true Scotsman argument. It won't surprise me if you develop that in further posts. This is the first time I've seen someone basically claim that natural selection and adaptation and mutation isn't evolution. That is precisely what is happening with drug resistant HIV and it happens in a population of viruses in a human much quicker than "incredibly long periods of time."

Edited December 2, 2010 by Dravin

[JohnnyRudick]

Adaption is a part of evolution, a large part of natural selection (which is not the only method by which evolution occurs). I'm not sure what you mean by turning on or off information already in the program? Decedents are going to share the similar (DNA transcription isn't perfect, I contain DNA that neither my Mother or Father contained because of errors in copying that DNA or mutation) subset of DNA as their parents, what evolution is going to do is shift that subset of DNA around.

If you think evolution presupposes some giant genetic difference between parent and offspring such is not the case. We basically evolved dogs so that some are one way and others are a different way, note that this evolution has taken place within the same species. The idea that things don't evolve until they are a different species is incorrect.

This is a classic example of evolution. As variations (HIV has a very error prone transcription process) in the genetic code of individual viruses confer a benefit the environment reduces the numbers of viruses that don't have the benefit. As a result the prevalence of a particular sequence of genetic code becomes predominate, in some cases to the point where the original sequence is no longer present in the environment (but not always). This is a classic example of natural selection. You went from a population of an organism that wasn't resistant to a drug to one that is resistant to a drug.

It doesn't even have to be a "beneficial" or big thing. If I killed every blonde person on the planet (and continued to do so to weed out recessive genes for such) the human population will evolve. Before there were genes for blonde hair, now there are none. You can do the reverse, if you kill everyone who isn't blonde for multiple generations you will have changed the genome of the population. Humans will evolve so that all humans (baring your mutations) are blonde. My guess is you scoff at this being considered evolution, but it is, evolution is much broader than most people realize. The things is that same process could be used to select for webbed toes (the key is it has to be present in the genome, obviously killing all non-winged humans doesn't result in a population of winged humans unless winged humans is a trait that can be selected for).

Now how does one get from somewhere like wings to no wings? That is where mutations (that build upon each other) and those huge spans of time come into play.

I believe that if you killed off every blond on the plaint for the

next 20 years every time one would show up, in 100 years that

blond can still be retrieved because the info is still in the code.

Just like from a few parents of the ark a wide variety of

creatures can emerge depending on the genetic info taken into the ark.

[GeneC]

You cannot adapt or evolve to a form higher order than already possessed. The second law of thermodynamics, which states in part that it is not possible for a spontaneous process to produce a system of higher order than the system possessed at the beginning of the change without an outside source of energy to improve the system.

I guess because of evolution we now have plants and animals without spirits as well as the rest (which He hath created) with spirits and bodies.

As the Presidency of the Church has stated.

"He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporally—“that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.”

[GeneC]

Then you were sloppy in not differentiating that:

is not your statement.

What? I can say that the theory of plate tectonics involves small earth demons moving the tectonics plates around and because it's a theory nobody can say that isn't what the theory involves?

I might but I'm not, I am speaking of evolution. You confuse a specific theory using evolution, the theory of the diversity of life, with the theory of evolution as a whole. This is like saying Newton's third 'law' is the sum of Newtonian physics.

You have the beginnings of a no true Scotsman argument. It won't surprise me if you develop that in further posts. This is the first time I've seen someone basically claim that natural selection and adaptation and mutation isn't evolution. That is precisely what is happening with drug resistant HIV and it happens in a population of viruses in a human much quicker than "incredibly long periods of time."

No the OP titled the Thread Human Evolution, I'm not confusing anything.. The Church to be quite clear on the subject. By the way there is nothing evolutionary about gravity or plate tectonics.

And I can see why you would be surprised.

[Dravin]

I believe that if you killed off every blond on the plaint for the

next 20 years every time one would show up, in 100 years that

blond can still be retrieved because the info is still in the code.

You can believe that but you'd be wrong. Are you really proposing that every white person has the genes to be a black person? Note genes are inheritable, so unless you can pass your tan to your children that doesn't count. Or if you prefer to believe white people came first change it to the genes to become a white person? Bleaching also doesn't count.

Tell my Johnny, how many children would it take you to have with say... Betty White to produce a black child? A Chinese one? What about an Indian one? Let's suppose you are and she are ageless, in the prime of your life and immune to disease, mutation or death and your children are likewise immune to mutation.

How many children?

You cannot adapt or evolve to a form higher order than already possessed. The second law of thermodynamics, which states in part that it is not possible for a spontaneous process to produce a system of higher order than the system possessed at the beginning of the change without an outside source of energy to improve the system.

Life consumes energy. It is not a closed system. By this logic two humans could not produce 3 children as you have the organization of two lifeforms generating the organization of three.

I guess because of evolution we now have plants and animals without spirits as well as the rest (which He hath created) with spirits and bodies.

Nope, who says life that has evolved doesn't qualify as having been created by God? Following your logic cauliflower, which evolved through artificial selection from a mustard like plant, is soulless.

The Church to be quite clear on the subject. By the way there is nothing evolutionary about gravity or plate tectonics.

Nope there isn't. Point? Both are theories, you stated that because something is a theory (evolution) one cannot misrepresent it or when stating its requirements be incorrect.

No the OP titled the Thread Human Evolution, I'm not confusing anything.

Yes you are. Humans evolving doesn't require incredibly long periods of time either. Though you may want to define what is meant by long period of time. Native Americans evolved when disease ripped through them and the remainder had variation that made them less susceptible to European disease, a trait which they then passed on to their offspring and changed the genome of the population. Various populations have experienced the founder effect, some of them quite recently.

I am willing to agree that the speciation of humans would most likely require a long period of time. But if you continue to conflate speciation with evolution we're going to be stuck in a loop and discussion is pointless.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Dravin

[GeneC]

Never mind I'll go converse with a BRICK WALL!

[JohnnyRudick]

Never mind I'll go converse with a BRICK WALL!

Hello;)

I'm your friendly Brick Wall:D

Yes, I cannot transfer my tan to my children

but I can transfer my ability to tan.

And yes, I believe that the abiliety to develope a perminate dark skin or

brown or white or what ever, was in the original code to be used when ever needed.

How long does it take to switch on a sequence of code?

The Deep Blue Sea says to the Brick Wall, "Not long":rolleyes:

And yes;

it is a principal which all who hold the Priesthood knows.

You cannot pass on "Keys" or "Authority" you yourself do not hold.

I believe it is a universal thing or something like that:)

Edited December 2, 2010 by JohnnyRudick
Pulling in a loose string:-)

[Dravin]

How long does it take to switch on a sequence of code?

I don't think you quite understand genetics. If I have all genes for white skin and my wife has all genes for white skin then my kids gets genes for white skin. It is not somehow lurking in the DNA, they don't have that version of it period.

You are proposing that all humans have the same DNA but we just have different sections of it turned on or off. Is this right? This understanding is incorrect. You have sections of DNA in your genes that I do not posses and visa versa. You may be thinking of recessive genes where parents who have one recessive and one dominate gene can (through the random luck of which sperm meets which egg) have a child who has two recessive genes. However if both have a double dominate gene or both have double recessive genes they can't pass on what they don't posses to their children. One could theoretically have a mutation down the line, which is why I stipulated against it.

The possibility of recessive genes are specifically why I stipulated multiple generations to control for it. BTW, 20 years time wouldn't be sufficient and wasn't the scale I was talking about as it isn't even 2 human generations.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Dravin

[JohnnyRudick]

I don't think you quite understand genetics. If I have all genes for white skin and my wife has all genes for white skin then my kids gets genes for white skin. It is not somehow lurking in the DNA, they don't have that version of it period.

You are proposing that all humans have the same DNA but we just have different sections of it turned on or off. Is this right? This understanding is incorrect. You have sections of DNA in your genes that I do not posses and visa versa. You may be thinking of recessive genes where parents who have one recessive and one dominate gene can (through the random luck of which sperm meets which egg) have a child who has two recessive genes. However if both have a double dominate gene or both have double recessive genes they can't pass on what they don't posses to their children. One could theoretically have a mutation down the line, which is why I stipulated against it.

The possibility of recessive genes are specifically why I stipulated multiple generations to control for it. BTW, 20 years time wouldn't be sufficient and wasn't the scale I was talking about as it isn't even 2 human generations.

Guess I'm working on old info:mellow:

Will have to recheck.

I believe I am right on the discription of what you think it is I

believe but I could be working off of a faulty memory.

Oh, you did have me right on that.

Yes, that was what I was proposing.

Later:D