Category: Science

Categories
History Politics Science

Race?

Building on my last blog about Natural Selection and the genetic story concerning dogs, let’s look at how “race” developed amongst humans.  We are all the same species, but we do have many physical differences.  How did the races develop?

First, we need an incident that separated man across the face of the Earth.  If you are an atheist, you may want to attribute it to ‘wanderlust’.  If you are a believer, the obvious incident would be the Tower of Babel.

5 And the LORD came down to see the city [Babel] and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. 8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Genesis 11:5-9

Nimrod built the first, ‘great’ cities mentioned in Scripture. According to the Book of Jasher (chapter 9), the people intended to build the tower tall enough to access heaven, kill God, and place Nimrod upon the heavenly throne.  I’m not saying this is a great plan or that there was any chance of success – evil doesn’t always need to have a logical basis.

The Book of Jubilees confides that 600,000 men worked for 43 years to build it, so there was a very large group of people that were unified in the evil plans of Nimrod.

Yahweh “confounded” their language and the people presumably separated themselves into groups that spoke the same language.  People tend to do this when they find themselves in a foreign land . . . they tend to gravitate towards people with the same culture and language (e.g., Little Italy, Chinatown)

As a side note, all these people already had the same culture and the same religion, so after the confusing of the tongues, they maintained the same gods but their gods now had multiple different names.  This is why so many pagan religions appear to worship the same gods.

As was the case with our dogs, humans (all descended from Noah) moved to different areas with different climates and adapted to their new surroundings . . . or died. 

Adaptations like skin color (melanoma helps protect against the harmful effects of the ultra-violet rays of the Sun) and body mass (more padding is better in colder climates).

Over time, these genetic differences became identifiable traits for different groups of people, but it did not change anyone into a different species.  It did help to identify people as an ‘outsider’ making it easier to discriminate against them. 

People within the group (or race) were preferred to those outside the group.  Often, people inside the group openly manifested their dislike and/or distrust of the outsiders. 

Wars pitted different groups against each other, and because the other group was not as strong, they were thought of as an inferior race.  Since they are inferior, it is okay to kill them, loot them, and enslave them.

Race-based discrimination has multiple sources, many of which preceded Darwin, but evolutionary theory gave “a powerful push to a scientific version of racism that still impacts us today,” said John West, vice president and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. (Darwin’s Racism)

In other words, Darwin ‘scientifically’ legitimated racism.

Four decades after the United States outlawed slavery, Samuel Phillips Verner purchased a young Mbuti pygmy man named Ota Benga from slave traders in the Congo for the World’s Fair exhibit. In 1906, officials at the Bronx Zoo in New York City put Benga in a cage with an orangutan. When two African American clergymen raised objections to his inhumane treatment, The New York Times responded with an article assuring people that “the pygmies … are very low in the human scale.”

We are quick to cancel books, today, based on racism, but Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1842), is an exceptionally racist tome, but its principles are required learning in our schools.

In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871), Darwin claims that “the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be extertimated.”

The term “Anthropomorphous apes” is used to reference “the negro or Australian [aborigine] and the gorilla.”

Racism was no longer just a personal prejudice; it was now science and science embraced it wholeheartedly.

The Eugenics movement rose in the 1880s with a book by Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton.  Inquiries into Human Fertility and its Development (1883) coined the term, “eugenics” which is Greek for “good in stock”

Eugenics sought to guide evolution through ‘planned’ selection rather than the randomness of natural selection.  The “higher races” would be more successful by harnessing the “overwhelming power of heredity.”

https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/educational-resources/timelines/eugenics

Many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations’ genetic stock.  Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly “fit” to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. Those deemed “unfit to reproduce” often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges on different IQ tests, criminals and “deviants”, and members of disfavored minority groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Planned Parenthood arose from this movement.

In Mein Kampf (1924), [Adolf] Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. “There is today one state,” wrote Hitler, “in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States.”

Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics’ movement. “I have studied with great interest,” he told a fellow Nazi, “the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”

Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his “bible.”

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics – History News Network

The brutality of the Nazi’s “Final Solution” brought discredit to the eugenics’ movement, but its goals are still being worked towards by groups like Planned Parenthood, who base 86% of their abortion clinics close to minority neighborhoods.

Belief in evolution does not make someone a Nazi, but you cannot be a Nazi (or a Communist, which killed many, many more people than the Nazis did) without belief in evolution.

The Christian or Believer stand should be that we are all the same race, the human race.  Science supports what Genesis told us thousands of years ago.

Scientists have long suspected that the racial categories recognized by society are not reflected on the genetic level.

But the more closely that researchers examine the human genome — the complement of genetic material encased in the heart of almost every cell of the body — the more most of them are convinced that the standard labels used to distinguish people by “race” have little or no biological meaning.

The criteria that people use for race are based entirely on external features that we are programmed to recognize.

Do Races Differ? Not Really, DNA Shows – NY Times, Aug 22, 2000

Maybe if we stop fixating on race?

But the genes that explain the phenotypic differences between populations only represent a tiny part of our genome, confirming once again that the concept of ‘race’ from a genetic standpoint has been abolished.

Dr Lluis Quintana-Murci of France’s National Centre for Scientific Research, Feb 4, 2008

With modern molecular evolutionary techniques, we can find over time genes in any one local area of humanity that are shared by all of humanity throughout time. There are no distinct branches, no distinct lineages. By this modern definition for race, there are no races in humanity.

Alan R. Templeton, professor of biology in arts and sciences at Washington University, Sep 1, 2011

Race is an industry that haters and dividers use to amass fame and fortune.  It is a political tool used to bludgeon opponents and the adherents of it are sought after to gain advantage by perpetuating lies that have been disproven for decades.

Democrats seek to intensify the lie through the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in our schools.  They are literally teaching that some children are sub-standard.  Darwin would be so proud.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. asked that his children be judged ‘by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin’.  He choose to say “color of their skin” rather than use the term, “race”.  Interesting.

This is definitely not the stand of the Democratic Party today.

We all have color in our skin.  A white man is not white in the same way a black man is not black.  We all have differing shades of brown and that is genetic.

So what shade were Adam and Eve?

If they were ‘white’, as depicted in numerous movies, then the ability to pigment to darker colors would not exist.

The same would be true if they were ‘black’, as is presupposed if man originated in Africa.  There would be no variation to produce light-skinned children

If the Creator gave them variety in their genes, then they would be able to produce children of many shades.

Because of this variety, parents can even produce twins of different shades.

Can we give a collective, “Awwwwwwwwwwwww”?

What the facts show is that there are differences among us, but they stem from  culture, not race.

We’re All the Same (Sep 10, 1998) – www. abcnews.com (ABC has since removed this article)

If someone tells you, “I don’t see color”, then they are being disingenuous (unless, of course, they are blind).

Even color-blind people see shades. 

We need to get to the point where we do look to the content of character rather than the color of skin.  Based on the content of the character of most politicians and their operatives, they can never allow us to reach that point, so they will continue to try to divide us by ‘race’.

You must decide, will you base your thinking on God’s Word or man’s imaginations?  In God’s Word, there are two races:  Believers and Unbelievers.  We get to choose which one we want to belong to.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 3:26-29

We are one in Christ who believe (have faith) and act according to His Word (“put on Christ”).

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial [Satan]? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

2Corinthians 6:14-18

Stop believing the way the World wants you to believe.  Stand for something eternal and true.  Stand on God’s Word.

1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Romans 12:1-2

Be reasonable – don’t be a bigot.  Renew your mind to what is good and perfect.

Categories
History Politics Science

Natural Selection versus Evolution

Seems like an odd title – we’ve been taught that they are the same thing. At least, that Natural Selection is the vehicle that makes Evolution possible.

An honest examination shows that Natural Selection actually disproves Evolution.

In previous blogs, I deposited that Darwinian evolution was an unproven theory that is being used to attempt to negate the idea that there is a Creator – It is past time to provide the evidence.

National Geographic defines natural selection as:

. . . the process through which populations of living organisms adapt and change. Individuals in a population are naturally variable, meaning that they are all different in some ways. This variation means that some individuals have traits better suited to the environment than others. Individuals with adaptive traits—traits that give them some advantage—are more likely to survive and reproduce. These individuals then pass the adaptive traits on to their offspring. Over time, these advantageous traits become more common in the population. Through this process of natural selection, favorable traits are transmitted through generations.

Natural selection can lead to speciation, where one species gives rise to a new and distinctly different species. It is one of the processes that drives evolution and helps to explain the diversity of life on Earth (https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/natural-selection/).

Disclaimer:  I am not disputing that “natural selection” takes place, nor that it can give rise to new species.  I will argue that natural selection is not a catalyst for the evolution of organisms to become different and/or better organisms.

Darwinian evolution teaches that man evolved over millions of years from primordial goo through several animal states.  This evolution had thousands of steps as that goo developed beneficial mutations that enabled it to better survive, which traits were passed on to each of its many ancestors, which also had beneficial mutations (or, as Kent Hovind states it, “From goo to you, by way of the zoo”).

Natural selection does not provide the actual mutation, it only determines what is better for the organism or worse, giving benefit or handicap to the organism. It then “selects” the better because the worse is more likely to die off sooner.  The definitive statement about variations fails to recognize that these variations are a loss of genetic material, not an enhancement of genetics.

Let us look at an actual scenario rather than unsupported claims.

The wolf is the ancestor of all domesticated dogs.  The Great Dane and the Yorkshire Terrier (which look nothing alike) are part of the same species, but the wolf and the coyote (which do look alike) are not of the same species.

The genetics of every organism have traits (e.g., large or small, dark or light) that they received from their parent organism.  Some genes are referred to as “dominant” (physically visible) and the others as “recessive” (present, but not physically visible if there is a corresponding dominant gene).

If we say that “A” (or “a”) is one trait and “B” (or “b”) is another, then we see that both of these fictional parents have dominant and recessive genes.  This is overly simplified since the number of genes that determine an organisms overall development is over a million.

Using just these three traits, we have 27 different gene combinations (3 x 3 x 3 = 27), of which only ten are depicted.  If you took all the million plus genes and did every combination, then you are looking at a rather large number.

Going back to our much simpler illustration, let us look at one trait – hair.  If two dogs have genes for both short hair (“S”) and long hair (“L”),

then the puppies have the possibility of several gene combinations.

The Short hair pup and the Long hair pup have less genetic variation than their parents have and the only way for their children to regain that variation is to mate them with another dog that has that variant.  Mating the Long hair dominant dog with another Long hair dominant dog will produce a long-haired dog.

This is the essence of dog-breeding.  Breeders mate specific dogs in order to eliminate certain traits.  Mating dogs with small tails, over time, eliminates the trait for long tails inside that breed.

This is obviously not Natural Selection since the Breeders (an intelligent designer?) made the selection, but in both cases, it is a choice that eliminates information, not adds information.

Atheists ask, “How could Noah have gotten all the thousands of species on the ark?”  The answer is, “He didn’t.”

19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Genesis 6:19-20

“After their kind”. 

Kind: [H4327] (miyn / meen) from an unused root meaning to portion out; a sort, i.e. species:–kind.

Strong’s Hebrew Concordance

Noah wasn’t required to take great danes, poodles, and beagles.  He needed to take a ‘dog kind’ which became the ancestor of all the dog breeds we have today.

The next protestation is then, “How could we get all the dog breeds in only 4300 years?”  Breeders are able to get ‘pure-bred’ animals in only hundreds of years.  The varieties of dogs and their adaptation to their climates is simple to imagine.

Dogs have several litters of pups in a normal life span.  Those pups grow up and have several litters, most of which all have several litters, which continues for thousands of generations, culminating in lots of dogs.

The dogs obviously don’t stay in the same place (anyone who thinks so has never driven around their neighborhood for hours searching for a dog that escaped the yard).  As they moved to different climates, natural selection would favor the traits that gave it a better chance of surviving in that new climate.

Dogs that migrated into colder climates would be more successful with thicker, longer hair and dogs that migrated into hotter climates would be more successful with less, or shorter, hair.  The longer the dogs stayed in these areas, the less likely the other trait would manifest itself, until it was completely eliminated from the gene pool for those specific dogs.

Once, again, this is natural selection, but it is not evolution.  We are looking at a loss of information, not the gaining of new and/or superior information.

Natural selection requires lots of information, some of which is eliminated over time.  This is what the Biblical, creation model would suggest, but it is not compatible with the evolutionary theory proposed by Darwin that is still taught in our schools despite its many, substantial, flawed concepts (just one of scores of articles that can be found on the subject is at What Are the Top Three Flaws in Darwinian Evolution, as Taught Today in Public Schools? – Evolution News and Science Today)

The complete title of Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, is a fairly racist sounding inscription.  Of course, it sounds racist because it is.

That is the topic for a future blog.

Darwin claims (and teachers teach) that his theory scientifically explains how species originated and improved over ‘lesser’ evolved species.  This is just not true (or as I like to call it, “a damn lie from the pit of hell”).

His example of big-beaked finches and small beaked finches benefiting from the climate of the Galápagos island group did not demonstrate what the finches evolved from. They were still finches – some with large beaks and some with smaller beaks. Just like human schnozolas.

Science introduces vast amounts of time to try to overcome the problems of evolving from a ‘lower’ to a ‘higher’ species, but that just compounds the problem of natural selection, loss of information, and gene mutation (which is almost never beneficial to the organism).

Natural Selection argues for a superior organism that changes over time to become a less diverse organism through the loss of genetic material.  This probably explains how the first humans were able to live as long as 900+ years.  It also argues for Yahweh’s instruction to not marry close relatives (if you believe the creation narrative, you believe we are all related) after over a thousand years of inter-marriage (ostensibly, Adam’s children marrying each other, Abram marrying his half-sister, etc.).

Darwin ignored Yahweh’s directive and married his first cousin (which was still commonplace among European ‘elites’).  The upper-class did not want to dilute the superiority of their progeny by marrying commoners.

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Charles Darwin, 1871

       The Darwin’s ten children were frequently ill and three did not survive to adulthood. Of the seven that did survive, some reports say that three were infertile.

       The couple’s son, Charles, passed away while just a toddler, daughter Henrietta was bedridden for years with digestive illnesses, and Horace and Elizabeth suffered from frequent convulsions. It seemed that every child had at least some malady, leading Charles to despair, “We are a wretched family & ought to be exterminated.”

https://allthatsinteresting.com/emma-darwin

Evolution and Natural Selection are not kindred spirits as atheistic scientists and other elites want us to believe.  Natural selection begs for an original, intelligent designer that created something ‘near perfect’ that corrupted over time.  That sounds too much like “God” to those that do not want to believe in a higher power or the laws that He has instituted.

Evolution must unquestioningly be taught in our schools because evidence of a Creator weakens their claim to a superior intellect as long as someone or something is substantially wiser.  Scientists, politicians, and other ‘influencers’ are the gods of this world and they do not want the next generation to believe otherwise.

They will, and have, use the media, the courts, and other means of intimidation to stop any questioning of their Darwinian religion. Exposing children to any legitimacy of the existence of God opens the door to Godly morality (which they do not wish to be bound by) and the promise of an afterlife (which evolutionary theory cannot account for).

Evolution is their religious dogma and must never be questioned – especially by facts and evidence.